Maoism

[¡Viva la Libertad!]

I don't want to look like an idiot on the board. Hell, I don't actually want to have anything to do with posing stupid questions and answering... well, stupidly.

But please (and don't be offended), I want to know... WHAT IS MAOISM?

Yes, yes, I know who Mao Zedong was (founded PRC). I don't like the man: millions upon millions were killed under his tyrannical rule that turned China into the worst totalitarian nightmare I've ever heard about. I think the CPC fucked up China and I don't think I am the only one.

I just want to know what is so appealing about it and what sets Maoists apart from other communists. Please don't post something that makes the claim that I am ignorant. I just want to know why Mao is considered somehow worthy to have his own teachings. Why don't we just simplify it to "Chinese Stalinism"?

I really don't want this question to go the wrong way, honestly. As far as experience goes I have never met nor actually encountered a Maoist. In fact, so far, the only socialists I have met were online. So, nothing against Maoists... just Mao. And I would appreciate Maoists and non-Maoists explaining exactly what Maoism is. Thank you.

[ShineThePath]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 07:50 am
I don't want to look like an idiot on the board. Hell, I don't actually want to have anything to do with posing stupid questions and answering... well, stupidly.

But please (and don't be offended), I want to know... WHAT IS MAOISM?

Yes, yes, I know who Mao Zedong was (founded PRC). I don't like the man: millions upon millions were killed under his tyrannical rule that turned China into the worst totalitarian nightmare I've ever heard about. I think the CPC fucked up China and I don't think I am the only one.

I just want to know what is so appealing about it and what sets Maoists apart from other communists. Please don't post something that makes the claim that I am ignorant. I just want to know why Mao is considered somehow worthy to have his own teachings. Why don't we just simplify it to "Chinese Stalinism"?

I really don't want this question to go the wrong way, honestly. As far as experience goes I have never met nor actually encountered a Maoist. In fact, so far, the only socialists I have met were online. So, nothing against Maoists... just Mao. And I would appreciate Maoists and non-Maoists explaining exactly what Maoism is. Thank you.
Comrade Zac, I hope I can help in this.

What principally sets "Maoism" or "Mao Zedong Thought" up as synthetically different from other previous summations and current ones is the development of the question of methodology of leadership, class analysis and struggle in the transitional phase of Socialism, contradictions of the Party-State model in connection to the transitional phase of Socialism, a critique of Social-Imperialism and State-Capitalism.

I would say what in actuality is the biggest contributions are Mao Zedong's methodology of Mass Line and his analysis of revisionism and class struggle in Socialism.

This is what seperates him from "Chinese Stalinism" (if there were such a thing), as well as Trotskyism of course.

Mao critiqued Stalin from the Left, for his mechanical way of handling contradictions amongst the masses, his lack of "Mass Line." For Mao Zedong, this can be summed up as "From the people, to the People." Mass Line is a way in which leadership deals with obvious contradictions in the fact they lead, but want to begin raising consciousness of the people to lead. Mao emphasized the need for investigation of the conditions of the masses, to learn from them in their struggles, and take their scattered ideas and synthesize them to be plan of actions, in accordance with the understanding the need for Revolution.

This approach has been compared to the pedagogy of Friere.

Organizations such as the Black Panther Party, Young Lords Party, I Wor Kuen, and even remnants of Anarchist federations such as "Love and Rage" were influenced by this particular line.

I would recommend looking intoMassline.info (http://www.massline.info/) for further detail.

Secondly, is the criticisms of the Soviet Union on the basis of their revisionist politics leading to the stagnation of revolutionary activity, and turning reactionary. Mao first criticized this process as it was beginning under Stalin and his metaphysical errors, but things came a head in the late 50s'. Khruschev's politics of the "three peacefuls" and his dismembering of the Politburo after they tried to replace him as General Secretary showed a new line was consolidated in the CPSU. The CPSU began promoting the concept that is no longer had any antagonistic class relations and was a Party of the people rather than just the workers'. Mao said the Soviet Union had gone revisionist, its party consolidated a bourgeois line and were taking a Capitalist Road. Mao and others like Zhang Chunqiao asserted the social-basis for this existed inside the Party, that there was a Bourgeois Right internal to it because of their relation to the means of production was one in which they held power over the workers'. Mao challenged this in the CPC during the Culturual Revolution, attacking the Capitalist-Roaders of Deng Xiaoping and Liu Shaoqi. The GPCR experimented in new forms and struggles in socialism, like nothing proceeded it. It was the first time the masses were told to challenge the Party and to set the course under the guiding principles og Communism.

I hope this leads to a brief summations to get into a larger discussion.

[¡Viva la Libertad!]

Thanks for the explanation, it helps me a lot. :)

[Specter]

I was on a meeting the other day with a lot of maoists. They where talking about the maoist guerilla inn Nepal, and after some people had a lecture about the situation, they talked about the maoist slogan "Power comes from the barrel of a gun"

Listening to the people, and synthesise their opinions? Sounds like a good idea. I have never found anny good books on maoism however.

My view is that after establishing a one-party state, the party should remain a hierarchy, and watch out so that non-revolutionary are kept out of the party, but organice meetings and such with the local people, and try to devolope a good collaboration.

[Random Precision]

God knows I hate flame wars with Maoists, but here goes...

Here is the marxists.org definition of Maoism, which seems to be pretty unbiased:


A theory and practice which claims to be an advancement of Marxism, developed as a critique of the Soviet Union. While Mao Zedong (1893-1976) valued Stalin as a “great Marxist-Leninist”, he explained Stalin committed some crucial errors:

1) He did not understand dialectics and ended up in metaphysics. He hence sometimes did not understand the demands of the masses. He did not distinguish between the different kinds of contradictions.
2) During the 30’s the regime of Stalin sentenced many innocents to death.
3) He did not conduct democratic centralism within the party good enough.
4) He did not handle the connections with foreign Communist parties well enough, espeically his handling of the 1927 events in China.

The result of these errors according to Maoism was that the Soviet Union was governed by a bureaucratic nomenclature which later was to conduct a “silent counterrevolution” turning the Soviet Union into an imperialist country, not crucially different from the USA.

These are the most distinct components of Maoism:

1) Guerrilla warfare/People’s War: The armed branch of the party must not be distinct from the masses. To conduct a successful revolution the needs and demands of the masses must be the most important issues.

2) New democracy: In backward countries socialism cannot be introduced before the country has gone through a period in which the material conditions are improved. This cannot be done by the bourgeoisie, as its progressive character is long since replaced by a regressive character.

3) Contradictions as the most important feature of society: Society is dominated of a wide range of contradictions. As these are different of nature, they must also be handled in different ways. The most important divide is the divide between contradictions among the masses and contradictions between the masses and their enemies. Also the socialist institutions are plagued with contradictions, and these contradictions must not be suppressed as they were during Stalin.

4) Cultural revolution: Bourgeois ideology is not wiped out by the revolution; the class-struggle continues, and even intensifies, during socialism. Therefore an instant struggle against these ideologies and their social roots must be conducted.

5) Theory of three worlds: During the cold war two imperialist states formed the “first world”; the USA and the Soviet Union. The second world consisted of the other imperialist states in their spheres of influence. The third world consisted of the non-imperialist countries. Both the first and the second world exploit the third world, but the first world is the most aggressive part. The workers in the first and second world are “bought up” by imperialism, preventing socialist revolution. The people of the third world, on the other hand, have not even a short-sighted interest in the prevailing circumstances. Hence revolution is most likely to appear in third world countries, which again will weaken imperialism opening up for revolutions in other countries too.

Maoism as a theory has grown its strongest roots among revolutionaries in the third world, and some of these movements, e.g. the CPN(M) in Nepal and the CPP of the Philippines, are advancing in their guerrilla warfare during the beginning of the 21st century. Western Maoism grew from the 1960s, and some of the movements have had some success in establishing themselves as the main communist parties in their countries.

My problems with Maoism are:

1. Class collaboration. The theory of New Democracy advocates unity between the peasantry, proletariat, petit-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie in "national liberation struggle", in reality nothing more than nationalist wars which the workers are asked to fight and die in.

2. Two-stagism. A related problem that argues socialism cannot be established until the national liberation struggle is complete. In practice it will inevitably lead to the supplanting of the proletarian revolution with the national liberation war.

3. Substitutionism. Maoist theory argues that a "revolutionary alliance of the proletariat and peasantry" may establish socialism. In China, the reality was that the peasants formed the bulk of the CCP while proletarians became an auxilliary force, although both were commanded by the CCP's core of intellectuals. This behavior was taken to its logical conclusion by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.

4. Third-world nationalism. Mao's Three Worlds theory argues for division of the international proletariat on the basis that the proletariat of imperialist nations is "bought off" by capitalism. Also it tends to ignore the socialist struggle in the imperialist nations. In turn, MIM takes that theory to its logical conclusion.

[bezdomni]

God knows I hate flame wars with Maoists,
When have you had a flame war with a Maoist?



1. Class collaboration. The theory of New Democracy advocates unity between the peasantry, proletariat, petit-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie in "national liberation struggle", in reality nothing more than nationalist wars which the workers are asked to fight and die in.


Do you understand why the democratic revolution has to happen before the socialist revolution? If you agree with the Marxist-Leninist theory that imperialism makes it so that the "rising bourgeoisie" have, in general, more interest in maintaining feudalism than going through their own bourgeois revolution - then the tasks of the bourgeois revolution (ie; giving the basis for a socialist economy) can and must be taken about by the 'joint democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry'.


1) Guerrilla warfare/People’s War: The armed branch of the party must not be distinct from the masses. To conduct a successful revolution the needs and demands of the masses must be the most important issues.

By this standard, you must also not think the russian revolution was a 'communist revolution' either.


3. Substitutionism. Maoist theory argues that a "revolutionary alliance of the proletariat and peasantry" may establish socialism. In China, the reality was that the peasants formed the bulk of the CCP while proletarians became an auxilliary force, although both were commanded by the CCP's core of intellectuals. This behavior was taken to its logical conclusion by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.


Yes, the main force of the Chinese Revolution (as with the Russian Revolution) was peasantry...but the leading force of the Chinese Revolution was the proletariat. The real importance is not "what percentage of what class" carried out the revolution, but what class is fundamentally the leading force of the revolution.

To paraphrase what LFTP said in another thread, to say that the chinese/russian revolution wasn't a proletarian revolution because it drew most of its support from the peasantry is like saying the french revolution wasn't a bourgeois revolution for the same reason.

Unless you think the bourgeois revolutions are actually fought by the bourgeoisie. :P


4. Third-world nationalism. Mao's Three Worlds theory argues for division of the international proletariat on the basis that the proletariat of imperialist nations is "bought off" by capitalism. Also it tends to ignore the socialist struggle in the imperialist nations. In turn, MIM takes that theory to its logical conclusion.[QUOTE]

First of all, MIM isn't Maoist.

Second of all, do you agree with Lenin's theory of imperialism? If so, it should be pretty obvious that the fundamental contradiction in the world right now is between the oppressed nations and imperialism.

When has Maoism ever ignored the 'socialist struggle in imperialist countries'? Have you ever heard of 'the 1960's & '70s'?

The Cultural Revolution shook the grounds of the imperialist world! Maoist tendencies developed in a lot of imperialist countries, but a lot ended up becoming defunct or becoming revisionist after the GPCR ended.

[Marsella]

First of all, MIM isn't Maoist.

Could you please expand on that SovietPants? I hear it a lot but never hear arguments to back it up. Are you referring to the fact that MIM considers western workers as bourgeoisie or supporters of capitalism and imperialism?


Yes, the main force of the Chinese Revolution (as with the Russian Revolution) was peasantry...but the leading force of the Chinese Revolution was the proletariat. The real importance is not "what percentage of what class" carried out the revolution, but what class is fundamentally the leading force of the revolution.

To paraphrase what LFTP said in another thread, to say that the chinese/russian revolution wasn't a proletarian revolution because it drew most of its support from the peasantry is like saying the french revolution wasn't a bourgeois revolution for the same reason.

Unless you think the bourgeois revolutions are actually fought by the bourgeoisie. tongue.gif

But is not a proletarian revolution significantly different from any other former revolution, in that it requires the mass support of the population, that it will benefit the majority themselves?

That has not been the case in bourgeoisie revolutions. Also, just because a revolution is lead by a minority proletarian class does not in itself mean it is a proletarian revolution. Right?

[Random Precision]

When have you had a flame war with a Maoist?

There was one I had with RNK a while back.


Do you understand why the democratic revolution has to happen before the socialist revolution? If you agree with the Marxist-Leninist theory that imperialism makes it so that the "rising bourgeoisie" have, in general, more interest in maintaining feudalism than going through their own bourgeois revolution - then the tasks of the bourgeois revolution (ie; giving the basis for a socialist economy) can and must be taken about by the 'joint democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry'.

I understand and agree with ML theory on the bourgeois-democratic revolution. Where I differ with Maoists is the wars of national liberation, which Mao, IIRC, argued must be fought through unity of not only the peasants and proletariat, but also the petit-bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie, the "bloc of the four classes". In my view, this is class collaboration. Furthermore, focusing on national liberation in essence delays the socialist, proletarian revolution. These two struggles must be one and the same.

I do not recall if Mao proposed that the same bloc should take on the bourgeois-democratic tasks. Did he?


By this standard, you must also not think the russian revolution was a 'communist revolution' either.


Yes, the main force of the Chinese Revolution (as with the Russian Revolution) was peasantry...but the leading force of the Chinese Revolution was the proletariat. The real importance is not "what percentage of what class" carried out the revolution, but what class is fundamentally the leading force of the revolution.

You misunderstand my position. The Russian Revolution was made by the workers and peasants, lead by the Soviets, the organs of workers' power, in addition to the proletarian vanguard. The Chinese Revolution was made by the peasants, with the proletariat as an immaterial/auxillairy force. It was lead by a vanguard composed of intellectuals and peasants.


First of all, MIM isn't Maoist.

Why not?


Second of all, do you agree with Lenin's theory of imperialism? If so, it should be pretty obvious that the fundamental contradiction in the world right now is between the oppressed nations and imperialism.

I am aware of this. However, the Maoist three worlds theory has the effect of dividing the international proletariat into different sections based on what nation they are in. As Marx said, workers have no country.


Another thing I would like to address. How would you address the orthodox Maoist view that homosexuality is a petit-bourgeois deviation that will disappear as socialism is gradually established? You may be familiar with the persecutions of homosexuals that occurred during the Cultural Revolution. As an RCP supporter, you may (or may not) be familiar with Avakian's polemics against "f*ggot capitalism" during the seventies and early eighties.

[bezdomni]

I understand and agree with ML theory on the bourgeois-democratic revolution.

Well, in practice, not supporting struggle of national liberation against imperialism is a serious deviation from the logical consequences of Lenin's theory of imperialism.


Where I differ with Maoists is the wars of national liberation, which Mao, IIRC, argued must be fought through unity of not only the peasants and proletariat, but also the petit-bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie, the "bloc of the four classes".

And what do you propose to do with the petit-bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie (who are oppressed by imperialism and can be united under the banner of the proletariat)? Send them to the firing squad?

That is usually something that Maoists get (incorrectly) accused of supporting! For example, why would those 'filthy Maoists who think first world workers are all parasites' support a unity with the parasitic classes themselves? There is a huge ambiguity here. You can't use both strawmen simultaneously, so what is it: are Maoists deeply opposed to unity with the non-productive classes, or do we dilute the interests of the proletariat by uniting all forces that can be united?

Furthermore, why not unite all forces that can be united as long as they are under the leadership of the proletariat? Do you think you won't need scientists or doctors or engineers (all generally petty-bourgeois) under socialism? Do you think the division of labor and the innate consequences of this will not exist under early socialism?

If so, you are again disagreeing entirely with Marx and Lenin's analysis.


Furthermore, focusing on national liberation in essence delays the socialist, proletarian revolution.

This is in direct contrast with the Leninist position that the democratic revolution must be carried out before the socialist revolution.

Paraphrasing Lenin, the only force capable of achieving a "decisive victory over Tsarism" is the joint democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. The task of this dictatorship is "to accomplish the changes urgently and absolutely indispensable to the proletariat and the peasantry...Of course, this will be a democratic, not a socialist dictatorship. It will be unable (withot a series of intermediary stages of revolutionary development) to affect the foundations of capitalism".

Lenin also said, "We intend to guide...not only the proletariat, organised by the Social Democratic Labor Party, but also this petty bourgeoisie, which is capable of marching side by side with us." and also, "The proletariat must be class conscious and strong enough to rouse the peasantry to revolutionary consciousness, guide its assault, and thereby independently persue the line of consistent proletarian democratism".

(All above quotes from Two Tactics. I can give more specific references upon request).

If Lenin's position is not clearly in contrast to yours (which is quite similar to Trotsky's), then this final quote should prove it beyond doubt:

"The question of the revolutionary classes cannot be reduced to a question of the 'majority' in any particular revolutionary government."

(Lenin's collected works, Vol. 15, pg. 373)



I do not recall if Mao proposed that the same bloc should take on the bourgeois-democratic tasks. Did he?


The bourgeois-democratic tasks in backwards countries can be carried out by the united front under the leadership of the revolutionary proletariat. That is the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist position.


You misunderstand my position. The Russian Revolution was made by the workers and peasants, lead by the Soviets, the organs of workers' power, in addition to the proletarian vanguard. The Chinese Revolution was made by the peasants, with the proletariat as an immaterial/auxillairy force. It was lead by a vanguard composed of intellectuals and peasants.

You can't apply Russian conditions to the Chinese Revolution. Yes, there were huge similarities, but there were also notable differences that required the Chinese Revolution to be different from the Russian Revolution.

Although, you seem to be resting on an incorrect assumption that the Chinese Revolution was led by "a vanguard of intellectuals and peasants". That is simply not true. The Chinese Revolution was carried out entirely under the leadership of the proletariat, although (like with the Russian Revolution), the main force was the peasantry.


Why not?

They have a mechanistic interpretation of Lenin's theory of Imperialism, and, in practice, they disagree heavily with Leninist organizational methods.

There are lots of other things as well.

That would be a good topic for another thread though...but I'd really rather stay focused on the discussion we already have here.



I am aware of this. However, the Maoist three worlds theory has the effect of dividing the international proletariat into different sections based on what nation they are in.

Well, the truth is that the proletariat is divided because of imperialism. Marx and Engels predicted something like this would happen (Capital, The Conditions of the Working Class in England; for example) and Lenin proved it.


As Marx said, workers have no country.

Marx also defined the proletariat as "the class with nothing to lose but its chains".

There are lots of "working class" people in first world countries who have some nice benefits given to them by imperialism. This doesn't mean that these people are stuck permanently in being reactionary pigs, it simply means that by and large, their material interests do not lie entirely with the immediate overthrow of capitalist-imperialism.

However, after the development of a strong socialist bloc and the eventual collapse of imperialism...these "middle strata" (labor aristocracy, petty-bourgeoisie) will become heavily polarized.


How would you address the orthodox Maoist view that homosexuality is a petit-bourgeois deviation that will disappear as socialism is gradually established?

Interestingly enough, I have never actually heard that line articulated by Mao himself (although that doesn't necessarily mean he didn't hold it...I have just never seen proof that this actually comes directly from Mao).

I think that line is very bad and separates us from the masses. However, it doesn't mean that the RCP at any time advocated like...the mass extermination of homosexuals or anything. The RCP, even when it held this line, opposed discrimination against homosexuals and worked closely with many homosexual people.

It was an incorrect line, nevertheless, and has been summed up and criticized by the RCP.

RCP: On the Position on Homosexuality in the New Draft Programme (http://revcom.us/margorp/homosexuality.htm)


I hear it a lot but never hear arguments to back it up. Are you referring to the fact that MIM considers western workers as bourgeoisie or supporters of capitalism and imperialism?

Yeah, that is one thing they get wrong. They blur the lines between the labor aristocracy (which is a strata of the working class that exists entirely contingent on the export of finance capital) and the imperialist bourgeoisie (which is the section of the bourgeoisie that does the actual exportation of finance capital).


But is not a proletarian revolution significantly different from any other former revolution, in that it requires the mass support of the population, that it will benefit the majority themselves?

I think you are making two big mistakes here:

1) You fail to acknowledge that in the cases of Russia and China (and most backwards, semi-feudal countries for that matter), the masses are the peasantry. Which is why the peasantry is the main force of revolutions in backwards countries, while the proletariat is the leading force.

2) The bourgeois revolutions (as in France) did have "mass support" and (temporarily) improved conditions for the masses.

The most important task of the bourgeois revolution is that it creates the basis for socialist revolution.

[ShineThePath]

I think we have to look at these things in a way that gives a critical opportunity to improve our theory and praxis thereof in the Internationalist Communist Movement today. I am glad "Hope Lies in the Proles" has posted his differences with what he thinks are the tenents of Maoism, so hopefully this will be able to have One split into Two, and show the contrasts between a Trotskyist approach to a Maoist one.

On your first point, Maoists uphold wars of National Liberation because they are quite frankly Marxist-Leninists. Lenin reaffirmed the principles of national self-determination during the Imperialist war. Self-determination is a principle of unity that the USSR was founded on, as well as PRC, the devaluation of this self-determination ends up in a reducto-classism vulgar Marxian position. The CPC waged a revolution on the basis of the leadership of a Communist line, the matter of the fact is, that in Imperialism only this type of leadership in struggle can lead to National Liberation for oppressed nations. In this understanding, principle contradiction amongst the masses is between the oppressed exploited people and the comprador Bourgeoisie and Imperialism.

"Class Collaborationism" here is over-simplified, the reality of the matter is many Bourgeoisie were comprador Bourgeoisie in China, who fought against the CPC. The National Bourgeoisie were mostly intellectual democratic nationalists, and were not antagonistic agains the CPC.

I see no reason why a United Front here is impossible. In the USSR, this United Front was made with various political trends and groups.

On point 2, I think I have dealt with a bit in sum just before, but in addition, lets look at this a bit logically if we are taking a Stagist approach to these questions. How could National Liberation not proceed before moving forward toward a transitional stage of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat? That is, you can't have Socialism while being dominated by an Imperialist power, it is a contradiction which must be dealt with before you begin to lead the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

This is good logical understanding and political practice, and I think Mao hits on these points in his essays "On Contradiction" and "On Practice."

On point 3, here we have a split between real question of what the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is. Here we have to ask a particular question, as scientific Marxists who are studying social phenomena, how did it come to be that a nation like China had a Communist Party that was leading a struggle? In a semi-feudal and semi-colonial country such like it, it had a successful revolutionary struggle and dubbed it a "Proletarian one." Now it is true, the Peasantry was a bulk and the backbone to the Communist led struggle, but one has to question if this was the case and there was still the development of a Communist Party, whether or not the class backround of the Party is itself relevant.

The Maoist proceeds thusly, in that stage of Imperialism and with already long global development of Marxism itself, Communist Consciousness takes on a universal character and can be taken up by anyone in struggle. This is why it not contradictory for a country of Peasants to have a Communist revolution, what matters is not class composition but the political line it is led with.

Other historical examples can be found in Haiti, where a colonial outpost of Slaves revolted under the principles of the well established Jacobin line in France. These people were slaves, however led themselves witha radical republican line. This could have only been possible because of the global character of Jacobinism in its spreading in influence amongst intellectuals, etc.

In essense, Line determines Dictatorship of the Proletariat, not whether there are more Workers' than Peasants.

Of course we can even see these complaints were made of the Bolsheviks, and Lenin himself argues for a position that is adherent to line not to Mass. The Mensheviks called for a mass party of Workers', that would be a leading force because it was a literal "workers' party." Lenin argued instead for a smaller, disciplined, and organized Party which was organized around the principles of Communist Revolution, NOT what class are you. Intellectuals with a grasp of the political line of the Proletariat were the Vanguard.

On point 4, this is just simply not the case. MOST Maoist tend to think that Imperialism has turned the class struggle into a global character of Oppressor Nations and Oppressed Nations, this is absolutely true and is not contradictory to a genuine analysis of Imperialism itself and right to Self-Determination of Nations.

Also of course, Maoists uphold the line "Labor Aristocracy" as it was put forward in Lenin's analysis of the working class of Imperialist countries, especially Britian at the time. The is a social basis for a reactionary conservatism amongst a section of the working classes.

But on MIM's formulation, that is basically absurd, and they are great minority in the international opinion of Maoists. Seriously, I am not sure if anyone should even consider MIM a real group. Literally, I think referring to MIM as an authority of Maoism is not the best of ideas.

[ShineThePath]

I think this conversation itself shows the absolute weakness in the conception of Stage linear model of revolutionary activity. It may help pragmatically to concieve revolutionary practice, but as a theoretical set, it is quite weak. As historical developments have shown, there are no clear cut routes and stages, but are filled with dialectical contradictions and struggle.

The stagist approach is a part of a vulgarized materialist persuit in my opinion and has to be striven to moved away from.

[bezdomni]

I'm still waiting for hope lies in the proles to respond to my post.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by SovietPants
I'm still waiting for hope lies in the proles to respond to my post.

I indeed profusely apologize for taking such a long time to respond.

In order to preserve the clarity of my own thought process on these crucially important issues, I have sacrificed the normal "quote and respond" method of replying. So if you think I have not addressed something in your post, as I may well do, please remind me and I shall. :)


Okay. So the first bone of contention we have remains the so-called "bloc of the four classes", the proletariat, peasantry, petit-bourgeoisie and the "national bourgeoisie". You have quoted Lenin on the importance of the proletariat leading the forces of the peasantry and petit-bourgeoisie during a revolutionary struggle in an underdeveloped country, a task that I agree with Lenin and yourself is quite important. Where you part ways with Lenin and I is the issue of the national bourgeoisie, which is in fact the crucial issue here, so I will attempt to explain my position in regards to it.

My position essentially stems from the fact that there is no "national bourgeoisie". The usual Maoist line, which I am glad ShineThePath brought up in his post, is a distinction between the progressive bourgeoisie and comprador bourgeoisie that act in the interest of international capital, a distinction that is ultimately meaningless. The reason for this is that once a country in the "developing world" has won its independence, there is no possibility that its bourgeoisie will stand against global capitalism. By the time independence is won, the markets of developing countries have already been penetrated to such a large extent that the bourgeoisie has no choice but to act in the interests of international capital. We see this in the foreign control of the greatest part of industry in the developing world. Even the industries that are domestically controlled have such a high degree of first world investment that they are in more or less the same state. So essentially, the bourgeoisie of developing nations has no independent economic role in their countries. In the Marxist understanding, we see that without any independent economic role they ultimately can have no independent political role.

This theory also inevitably becomes class collaboration. We only need to consider the situation of workers in a "third world" factory who are oppressed and exploited to an unbelievable extent, but they are told not to strike because the owner is on the side of the national liberation, to see why. My point here is that the working class must remain politically independent. I will provide several examples from history to demonstrate what happens when this theory is put into practice (understand here I am talking about making common cause with the bourgeoisie). The Maoist movement in Indonesia had set about uniting with the national bourgeoisie and were convinced that they had some elements that supported them, only to have those elements turn on them. In India, the Communist Party was a bit late on the game at the time of independence, and ended up making common cause with the bourgeois Congress Party to the extent that they were an auxiliary force that never managed to become anything like a threat. And in the twenties in China the Communists ended up being used and then eliminated by the Kuomintang during the Northern Expedition, and their remaining force was cut off from the working class entirely, which I will come back to for your second point. But the essence is that either the proletarian line will become diluted by this united front, or it will be co-opted entirely and defeated. (To make my position more clear: I do not claim that Maoists think all first-world workers are parasites, as regards the dilemma you presented me with).


Your second point is on the subtleties of the Russian Revolution versus the Chinese Revolution. It seems I have not explained my position clearly enough, so I will address this further.

The most important question here sees to be where the revolution happened. You will no doubt remember that in Russia, the revolution was for the most part made in the centers of industry, especially Moscow and Petrograd. It therefore makes sense that the organized proletariat played such a strong leading role in that revolution. Winning over the peasantry was indeed an important task, but moreso for defending the revolution during the Civil War than actually making it in the first place.

Now, you have quoted Lenin once again on the makeup of revolutionary movements and governments. It is indeed an important point that he makes, and one which I agree with entirely. But we run into some problems when applying this standard to the revolution in China. My understanding of the matter is that after the Northern Expedition, the massacres in Shanghai and Canton, and the defeat of each Soviet Republic, the remaining Communists went on the famous Long March and ended up in Yan'an, one of the most underdeveloped regions in China and a place where there was essentially no working class. While some Communists survived in the cities, they were severely isolated. So those that embarked on the Long March now had no contact with the organized working class. When the CCP and KMT struck a deal to get rid of the Japanese, the Communists were allowed to organize in the countryside, but never in the cities. So as they regained power and influence, it was in the countryside. The CCP leadership, while it contained a few former workers, had a vast majority of petty-bourgeois intellectuals. Now, the essential tenet of revolution for a Marxist is that the revolution is the self-emancipation of the working class, so they would respond by saying that, rather idealistically, that proletarian consciousness rested with the party. The only problem with that answer is that it doesn't, it rests with the organized working class. As a result, "the country defeated the cities", and the Chinese revolution was made without any substantial participation from the proletariat. That is my understanding, but I would indeed be interested if you could somehow demonstrate that it was, in fact, under the proletariat's leadership.


Your third point concerns the three worlds theory. I am also grateful that ShineThePath brought up Lenin's theory of the labor aristocracy, which I believe is crucial to the discussion and will therefore explain my position on before I go any further.

It is my argument that the labor aristocracy, like the "national bourgeoisie", does not exist. I know this is in contradiction to Lenin's thought, but I hope that this does not stop me from being a Leninist. This is not in the least because there is no economic mechanism to explain how the bourgeoisie in developed countries hands out its profits from imperialism to the most highly paid and skilled workers. It is also contradicted in history by the fact that these highly paid and highly skilled workers have consistently been at the forefront of revolutionary struggle in the developed world, for example the auto workers in the United States during the thirties, and the armaments and machinery workers in Great Britain, Germany, Italy and Russia before, during, and directly after World War I. I will explain more if you so desire.

OK, onto the main subject now. I believe you make a mistake when you say that workers in the "first world" are given "nice benefits" because of imperialism. These benefits have been won time and again through struggle (or sometimes the threat of struggle) and if the bourgeoisie did not have to give them to the workers, they certainly would not do so. Since the workers of the developed nations have made so much progress, the idea that they will not want to take back the rest of what they have won is simply ridiculous.

In its essence, the Three Worlds Theory takes the economic motor out of Marxism by saying that the bourgeoisie and proletariat of the developed world have common interests, as well as those classes of the developing world. Thus it follows that the dividing line of the world is of a national rather than economic nature.

This is the essence of why I believe Maoism is a fundamentally anti-Marxist movement.


Thank you for addressing the orthodox Maoist line on homosexuality. :) To spice things up a bit... what is your opinion of Nixon's meetings with Mao, and the moves toward an alliance with the United States? I know that MIM claims that Mao was under pressure from the revisionists in the party, but I am interested in knowing your opinion.

[Rawthentic]

My position essentially stems from the fact that there is no "national bourgeoisie". The usual Maoist line, which I am glad ShineThePath brought up in his post, is a distinction between the progressive bourgeoisie and comprador bourgeoisie that act in the interest of international capital, a distinction that is ultimately meaningless.

This is, after all, the strategy that Mao employed while defeating first Japanese and then American imperialism. He characterized the national bourgeoisie in China at the time as a small, weak, and vacillating class. Yet it had its contradictions with imperialism and, unlike the "comprador bourgeoisie," saw its interests in national economic development that would principally be based in China, rather than having an economy geared toward trade and international finance. So it was possible to unite with it to a degree, and proceeding from the standpoint of "uniting all who could be united," Mao's strategy was that it should be part of the united front against imperialism, *under the leadership of the proletariat.* True enough, many other parties, including nominally 'Maoist' parties, have gotten this wrong, and have entered united fronts that were led by the national bourgeoisie, leading to disastrous results, particularly in Indonesia in 1965 (the pro-U.S. coup).


The CCP leadership, while it contained a few former workers, had a vast majority of petty-bourgeois intellectuals. Now, the essential tenet of revolution for a Marxist is that the revolution is the self-emancipation of the working class, so they would respond by saying that, rather idealistically, that proletarian consciousness rested with the party. The only problem with that answer is that it doesn't, it rests with the organized working class. As a result, "the country defeated the cities", and the Chinese revolution was made without any substantial participation from the proletariat. That is my understanding, but I would indeed be interested if you could somehow demonstrate that it was, in fact, under the proletariat's leadership.
And this here is the essence of economism.

You equate communist ideology, with individual workers, rather than the proletariat as class. The communist party should strive to bring in as many proletarians as possible, but what matters is if they can apply and uphold communist ideology, not how much more 'proletarian they are' than others. What matters is, was the CCP correct? Yes. Was Lenin correct? Yes he was. So, simply because there were little workers in the CCP, amounts to little. Proletarian, or communist ideology, rested within the party because its members had grasped, or taken up the proletariat's world view and applied it correctly.

The CCP was forged out of the struggles of the proletariat in China, and had a deep bond with the proletarians in the cities all throughout the revolution. It organized general strikes and mobilized proletarians both before and throughout the people's war, and to an even greater deal during the GPCR. While the proletarians were not the main force, the were the leading force. They were the class that their vanguard party, the CCP was forged out of.

This is in fact, against Leninist, and Marxist (since Leninism is a continuation of the latter) thinking. In What is to Be Done?, he indeed says that the communist party is not an 'organization of workers' as Trotskyists believe. Rather, the communist party is made up of the most resolute comrades that put revolution and the masses above all else.

Lenin says in WITBD?:

"Such workers, average people of the masses, are capable of displaying enormous energy and selfsacrifice in strikes and in street, battles with the police and the troops, and are capable (in fact, are alone capable) of determining the outcome of our entire movement – but the struggle against the political police requires special qualities; it requires professional revolutionaries. And we must see to it, not only that the masses “advance” concrete demands, but that the masses of the workers “advance” an increasing number of such professional revolutionaries. Thus, we have reached the question of the relation between an organisation of professional revolutionaries and the labour movement pure and simple. Although this question has found little reflection in literature, it has greatly engaged us “politicians” in conversations and polemics with comrades who gravitate more or less towards Economism. It is a question meriting special treatment. But before taking it up, let us offer one further quotation by way of illustrating our thesis on the connection between primitiveness and Economism." --emphasis added

"It is only natural to expect that for a Social-Democrat whose conception of the political struggle coincides with the conception of the “economic struggle against the employers and the government”, the “organisation of revolutionaries” will more or less coincide with the "organisation of workers". This, in fact, is what actually happens; so that when we speak of organisation, we literally speak in different tongues."

"The workers’ organisation must in the first place be a trade union organisation; secondly, it must be as broad as possible; and thirdly, it must be as public as conditions will allow (here, and further on, of course, I refer only to absolutist Russia). On the other hand, the organisation of the revolutionaries must consist first and foremost of people who make revolutionary activity their profession (for which reason I speak of the organisation of revolutionaries, meaning revolutionary Social-Democrats). In view of this common characteristic of the members of such an organisation, all distinctions as between workers and intellectuals, not to speak of distinctions of trade and profession, in both categories, must be effaced. Such an organisation must perforce not be very extensive and must be as secret as possible. Let us examine this threefold distinction." -- emphasis mine


In its essence, the Three Worlds Theory takes the economic motor out of Marxism by saying that the bourgeoisie and proletariat of the developed world have common interests, as well as those classes of the developing world. Thus it follows that the dividing line of the world is of a national rather than economic nature.

This is the essence of why I believe Maoism is a fundamentally anti-Marxist movement.
Strawman.

The principle contradiction, as I have noted above, is the that of the imperialist bourgeoisie in the underdeveloped nations. The only 'common interest' they have is to defeat imperialism. The national bourgeoisie and the proletariat have diametrically opposed interests in terms of defeating imperialism, but this is why it is always done under the leadership of the proletariat and its ideology.

The idea that the working class must liberate itself and cannot be liberated by other classes or individual saviors is an essential part of MLM. And in order to liberate itself, the proletariat must emancipate all of humanity--that is an idea that has been foundational to Marxism ever since the Communist Manifesto was written. In the process of doing away with all forms of exploitation and oppression, and achieving the end of all class distinctions as well as the production and social relations and ideology corresponding to those class distinctions, it is necessary to abolish classes themselves. Unlike the proletariat, the petty bourgeoisie--as a class--cannot liberate itself (or, certainly, the proletariat). This ties in with the question of "revenge." If the proletariat were to aim only to liberate itself and not the other classes, then (a) it would fail, because a united front of all classes under the leadership of the proletariat is necessary, and other classes--and in particular, in the USA, the petty bourgeoisie--would not join this united front if it would not lead to their emancipation; (b) if the proletariat failed to emancipate all of humanity, there would still be classes, and the proletariat itself, which would be in power, would become a new class of exploiters (and this is not speculation; it is what actually happened in the USSR and China, where a new bourgeoisie arose from the ranks of the proletariat and its vanguard party and became the leaders in the restoration of capitalism); © it is impossible to eliminate commodity production, which contains within it the seeds of capitalist exploitation and is the material foundation of the existence of classes under capitalism, without eliminating classes. However, for the overall process to stay on track and actually lead to the achievement of the communist goal, the proletariat must maintain all-round leadership in all of its alliances with other classes. It does not become an "instrument" of other classes or of their conceptions of emancipation. It does not turn leadership over to some other class, including the national bourgeoisie in an oppressed country.

I think this addresses very well the anti.-Marxist, economist nature of Trotskyism.


It is my argument that the labor aristocracy, like the "national bourgeoisie", does not exist. I know this is in contradiction to Lenin's thought, but I hope that this does not stop me from being a Leninist.
Of course it does stop you. In an imperialist country, the bedrock of a communist revolution is the lower, deeper section of the proletariat, in the US mainly being the black and latino proletariat. Not that the better off workers have no stake, but they need to be won over of course to the leadership of that lower section of the proletariat. Lenin emphasized this as well.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Mao never used the word "Maoism" Mao always refered to his work as simply additions to Marxism-Leninism. I think Mao adapted Marxism-Leninism to the third world because before the Chinese Revolution Revolutions had only occured in countries which already had some sort of development and industrialization. Meanwhile in China and most of the rest of the world the masses lived in the countryside

[RNK]

And in that reguard, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is the most advanced line of revolutionary theory, in that it applies better than all others to the entire world. Whereas Marxism-Leninism seems to be stumped when it comes to revolutionary politics in the unindustrialized Third World, MLM provides the necessary additions to theory to develop a worldwide movement capable of a global revolution.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

In view of the fact that Mao was a theoretical clown, RNK's comment above is clearly ironic.

Proof?

Check this out:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...st&p=1292380517 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=70981&view=findpost&p=1292380517)

[Dros]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 14, 2007 01:50 pm
In view of the fact that Mao was a theoretical clown, RNK's comment above is clearly ironic.

Proof?

Check this out:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...st&p=1292380517 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=70981&view=findpost&p=1292380517)
... what the fuck are you talking about and where is you alleged proof?...

Why don't you address Maoism instead of making some nit picky argument?

I also think you are misrepresenting Mao's ideas there although perhaps not intentionally. Can you give me a link so that I can read the whole passage in context?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

drosera:


... what the fuck are you talking about and where is you alleged proof?...

Oh dear, I do believe I have upset one of the true believers. :o


Why don't you address Maoism instead of making some nit picky argument?

I see, it's 'nit picking' to show that the core of Mao's 'theory' is fundamentally flawed, is it?


I also think you are misrepresenting Mao's ideas there although perhaps not intentionally. Can you give me a link so that I can read the whole passage in context?

On the contrary, this is indeed Mao's (and Lenin's, and Plekhanov's, and Engels's -- and a host of others's) theory.

You have not been reading the dialectical prophets too well, have you?

And the link was given. In your highly emotional -- and irrational -- state, I am not surprised you missed it.

Here it is again; try not to overlook it this time:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/...-1/mswv1_17.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm)

I now look forward to your agreeing with me that Maoism is a total waste of time.

[Oh, and history has refuted it, too. :rolleyes: ]

[Dros]

I see, it's 'nit picking' to show that the core of Mao's 'theory' is fundamentally flawed, is it?

In what way is that one sentence the core of Mao's theory? Your "proof" is very unconvincing.


On the contrary, this is indeed Mao's (and Lenin's, and Plekhanov's, and Engels's -- and a host of others's) theory.

Ummm... Evidence please about how this one sentence (taken out of context) refutes all of Marxism-Leninism. You really do have a high opinion of yourself.


[Oh, and history has refuted it, too. :rolleyes: ]

Again, with the lack of any meaningful analysis.

If you are going to make absurdly sweeping claims based on a single line that you have just totally destroyed all of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, you can at least back it up with an argument (if you have one) other than "It's dead! I killed it with my awesome "dialectician" skills!"

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14, 2007 11:57 am
And in that reguard, Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is the most advanced line of revolutionary theory, in that it applies better than all others to the entire world. Whereas Marxism-Leninism seems to be stumped when it comes to revolutionary politics in the unindustrialized Third World, MLM provides the necessary additions to theory to develop a worldwide movement capable of a global revolution.
That's not really true, RNK. How is Maoism "better" for the third world? Marxism-Leninism has fueled revolutions in Cuba, Colombia, El Salvador, Grenada, Burkina Faso and other "third world" countries. I don't think this argument holds when you look at history.

LeftHenryML

Mao never used the word "Maoism" Mao always refered to his work as simply additions to Marxism-Leninism. I think Mao adapted Marxism-Leninism to the third world because before the Chinese Revolution Revolutions had only occured in countries which already had some sort of development and industrialization. Meanwhile in China and most of the rest of the world the masses lived in the countryside

He did use "Mao Zedong Thought" ("si sheng" or something like that), which is kind of the same thing if you ask me.

Anyway, Marx "adapted" his theories to the struggle of the peasantry on more than one occassion. This only comes down to flexibility of revolutionary theory, it doesn't necessitate the change in theory that Mao attempted.

Shine The Path (on edit)

On how Maoism differed from Trotskyism, it comes down to the analysis of the Soviet Union. Mao did not reject Stalin's course outright, and actually emulated it in many ways. Trotsky, on the other hand, analyzed the direction of the worker state. To Mao, Stalin merely made mistakes; to Trotsky, Stalin represented the bureaucratic deformities of Soviet society.

Mao follows in Stalin's footsteps in many ways. First, he followed Stalin's wishes when it came to Shanghai and collaborating with the Guomindang. Secondly, Mao put in place a nomenklatura in China, neglected worker democracy, set in motion the course to capitalist restoration and blamed it on "capitalist roaders".

"Capitalist roaders" are not the problem, the capitalist road is.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

drosera:


In what way is that one sentence the core of Mao's theory?

It's the core idea in the dialectical 'theory' of change, and hence of Mao's philosophy, as he himself indicates in that essay; everything is governed by this principle -- he says.


Your "proof" is very unconvincing.

More interesting: your endeavour to whistle in the dark while your core theory goes up in smoke is even less convincing.


Evidence please about how this one sentence (taken out of context) refutes all of Marxism-Leninism. You really do have a high opinion of yourself.

You really are rather short-sighted; I included a handful of quotations from the dialectical prophets to show they believed the same as Mao. [There are plenty more.]

You seem not to know very much about your own core 'theory'. :o


Again, with the lack of any meaningful analysis.

Again, more whistling in the dark.


If you are going to make absurdly sweeping claims based on a single line that you have just totally destroyed all of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, you can at least back it up with an argument (if you have one) other than "It's dead! I killed it with my awesome "dialectician" skills!"

1) It's not based on one line, but on the whole of that essay (and on other articles/books that the dialectical prophets wrote -- it's a core idea with them too).

Now, I am quite happy to see you abandon it here, but your Mao-groupie friends might take a dim view of your 'Revisionism' if you do. [Just be grateful they aren't in power, or they'd re-educate you with a bullet in the brain.]

And I note, your only argument in response is parody. Now, if I were in your position (of ignorance), I'd probably do the same.

2) I did not mention Marx. He abandoned this way of speaking. Now we can see why.

3) If you check out the links I provided, and resisted the temptation to draw attention to your own ignorance, you would have seen all the proof you need.

And then you could go back to practicing some more catchy whistling...

Dialectics -- refuted by history. And a good job too. :)

[Dros]

It's the core idea in the dialectical 'theory' of change, and hence of Mao's philosophy, as he himself indicates in that essay; everything is governed by this principle -- he says.

I'm pretty sure I said you were flagrantly misrepreseniting this.

And how does this destroy Maoism? Please be precise instead of obnoxious.


More interesting: your endeavour to whistle in the dark while your core theory goes up in smoke is even less convincing.


More interesting: your endeavour to whistle in the dark while your core theory goes up in smoke is even less convincing.

Why don't you make an argument for a change?


You seem not to know very much about your own core 'theory'. :o

Again, justify your absurd assertion that the theory is wrong. Your argument is full of silly assertions and meaningless bs.


If you check out the links I provided, and resisted the temptation to draw attention to your own ignorance, you would have seen all the proof you need.

Generally speaking, arguments contain more than your snide comments. Usually, someone tries to prove something with what is termed "analysis" instead of links. Didn't you get the memo?


Dialectics -- refuted by history. And a good job too. :)

Do you ever say anything meaningful at all?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

drosera:


I'm pretty sure I said you were flagrantly misrepreseniting this.

You can claim all you like sonny, but I have represented Mao's confused thought accurately.


And how does this destroy Maoism?

The core theory is bunkum -- you work the rest out for yourself.


Please be precise instead of obnoxious.

I prefer to be obnoxious -- to you mystics.


Why don't you make an argument for a change?

I suggested earlier you were short-sighted, but not even you could have missed this from the other thread:


Just like other dialecticians, Mao is thoroughly confused:


[b]"Why is it that '...the human mind should take these opposites not as dead, rigid, but as living, conditional, mobile, transforming themselves into one another'? Because that is just how things are in objective reality. The fact is that the unity or identity of opposites in objective things is not dead or rigid, but is living, conditional, mobile, temporary and relative; in given conditions, every contradictory aspect transforms itself into its opposite....

"In speaking of the identity of opposites in given conditions, what we are referring to is real and concrete opposites and the real and concrete transformations of opposites into one another....

"All processes have a beginning and an end, all processes transform themselves into their opposites. The constancy of all processes is relative, but the mutability manifested in the transformation of one process into another is absolute." [Mao (1961b), pp.340-42. Quotation marks altered to conform to the conventions adopted in my Essays. Bold emphasis added.]

Here are a few more confused DM-worthies:


"The law of the interpenetration of opposites.... [M]utual penetration of polar opposites and transformation into each other when carried to extremes...." [Engels (1954), pp.17, 62.]

"[Among the elements of dialectics are the following:] internally contradictory tendencies…in [a thing]…as the sum and unity of opposites…. [This involves] not only the unity of opposites, but the transitions of every determination, quality, feature, side, property into every other [into its opposite?]….

"The identity of opposites…is the recognition…of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature…. The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their 'self-movement', in their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites. Development is the 'struggle' of opposites…. [This] alone furnishes the key to the self-movement of everything existing….

"The unity…of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute…." [Lenin (1961), pp.221-22, 357-58. Emphases in the original.]

"And so every phenomenon, by the action of those same forces which condition its existence, sooner or later, but inevitably, is transformed into its own opposite…." [Plekhanov (1956), p.77.]

All this seems to suggest that objects and processes not only change because of their internal opposites, but that they change into them (and, according to Lenin, they change into all of them!), and that they also produce these opposites while they change --, or they do so as a result of that change. As we shall see, all this presents DM-theorists with some rather nasty dialectical headaches.

To see this, let us suppose that object/process A is comprised of two "internal opposites" O* and O**, and thus changes as a result.

But, O* cannot itself change into O** since O** already exists! If O** didn't already exist, according to this theory, O* could not change, for there would be no opposite to bring that about.

And it is no good propelling O** into the future so that it now becomes what O* will change into, since O* will do no such thing unless O** is already there in the present to make that happen!

But, if object/process A is already composed of a dialectical union of O* and not-O* (i.e., O**) and O* 'changes' into not-O*, how can it do this if not-O* already exists? All that seems to happen is that O* disappears. Thus, O* does not change into not-O*, it is just replaced by it.

At the very least, this account of change leaves it entirely mysterious how not-O* itself came about. It seems to have popped into existence from nowhere.

It cannot have come from O*, since O* can only change because of the operation of not-O*, which does not yet exist! And pushing the process into the past (via a 'reversed' version of the negation of the negation) will merely reduplicate the above problems.

[FL = Formal Logic.]

Now, it could be objected that all this seems to place objects and/or processes into fixed categories, which is one of the main criticisms dialecticians make of FL. Hence, the above argument is entirely misguided -- or so it could be claimed.

In that case, let us suppose that object/process A is comprised of two changing "internal opposites" O* and O**, and thus develops as a result.

The rest still follows. Hence, if object/process A is already composed of a changing dialectical union of O* and not-O* (i.e., O**) and O* 'develops' into not-O* as a result, where then is the change? All that seems to happen is that O* disappears.

Thus, O* does not change into not-O* it is just replaced by it, since not-O* already exists!

The only way to read this to avoid the above difficulty is to argue that despite this, O* still 'develops' into not-O*. But that cannot work, for not-O* must already exist for this to happen, and that would mean that there would now be two not-O*s where once there was only one!

It would also mean, incidentally, that all the while not-O* must remain the unchanged (which denouement would violate the DM-thesis that all things are always changing, and changing onto one another!).

Of course, it could be argued that not-O* 'develops' into O* while not-O* 'develops' into O*. But if that were so, while it was happening, these two would no longer be 'opposites' of one another --, not unless we widen the term "opposite" to mean "anything that an object/process turns into, and/or any intermediate object/process" while that is taking place". Naturally, that would make this 'Law' work by definitional fiat, rendering it eminently 'subjective' once more.

But even this will not work. Let us once again suppose that object/process A is comprised of two changing "internal opposites" O* and O**, and thus develops as a result. On this scenario, O* would change into an intermediary, but not into not-O* (which is, as we saw above, O**), contradicting the DM-worthies quoted earlier.

No, O* would have to change into an intermediary -- say O*1 --, and it would remain in that state, unchanged, for there is as yet no not-O*1 in existence to make it change any further.

Anyway, even if O*1 were to change into not-O*1 itself (as we suppose it must, given the doctrine laid down by the DM-prophets), then all the earlier problems would reappear, for this could only take place if not-O*1 already exists to make it happen. But not-O*1 cannot already exist, for O*1 has not changed into it yet!

It could be objected that the above abstract argument misses the point; in the real world things manifestly change. For example, it might be the case that John is a boy, but in a few years time it will be the case that John is a man. Now, the fact that other individuals are already men, does not stop John changing into one, as the above claims. So, John can change into his opposite even though that opposite already exists. Or so it could be claimed.

Maybe so, but according to the DM-worthies above, John can only change because of a struggle between opposites. Are we now really supposed to believe that "John is a man" is struggling with "John is a boy" -- or that manhood is struggling with boyhood?

Furthermore, John's 'opposite' is whatever he becomes (if he is allowed to develop naturally). But, as noted above, that opposite cannot now exist or John would not need to become him!

So, in ten or fifteen years, John will not just become any man, he will become a particular man. Let us call the man that he becomes Manj. In that case, this opposite must exist now or John will not change into him (if the DM-worthies above are to be believed). But, if that is so, John cannot become Manj since he already exists!

[This is, of course, just a concrete example of the argument above.]

Consider another hackneyed example: water turning into steam at 100oC (under normal conditions). Are we really supposed to believe that the opposite that water becomes (i.e., steam) makes water turn into steam? It must do so if the above DM-worthies are to be believed. So, while you might think it is the heat/energy you are putting into the water that turns it into steam, what really happens according to these wise old dialecticians is that steam makes water turn into steam!

In that case, save energy, and turn the gas off!

Let us track a water molecule to see what happens to it. To identify it we shall call it W1, and the steam molecule it turns into S1. But, if the DM-worthies above are correct, S1 must already exist, otherwise W1 could not change into it. But if that is so, where does S1 disappear to? In fact, according to the above worthies, since opposites turn into one another, S1 must change into W1! So while you are boiling a kettle, according to this Superscientific theory, steam is turning back into the water you have just boiled, and at the same rate!

One wonders therefore how kettles manage to boil dry.

This must be so, otherwise, when W1 turns into S1 -- which already exists or W1 could not change -- there would have to be two S1s where there used to be one! Matter created from nowhere!

Of course, the same argument applies to water freezing (and to any and all other examples of change).

None of this, of course, is to deny that change occurs, only that DM cannot account for it.

Whichever way we try to re-package this 'Law' we end up with insuperable problems.

However, Mao attempted to revise Hegel, Engels and Lenin by the invention of principle and secondary contradictions (arguably to allow him to indulge in class-collaboration with the Goumindang):


'For instance, consider the Kuomintang and the Communist Party. Take one aspect, the Kuomintang. In the period of the first united front, the Kuomintang carried out Sun Yat-sen's Three Great Policies of alliance with Russia, co-operation with the Communist Party, and assistance to the peasants and workers; hence it was revolutionary and vigorous, it was an alliance of various classes for the democratic revolution. After 1927, however, the Kuomintang changed into its opposite and became a reactionary bloc of the landlords and big bourgeoisie. After the Sian Incident in December 1936, it began another change in the direction of ending the civil war and co-operating with the Communist Party for joint opposition to Japanese imperialism.'

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/...-1/mswv1_17.htm

But how can contradictions themselves change? Presumably, if they do, they too must be UO's.

[UO = Unity of Opposites.]

Let us assume then that the 'Primary' contradiction P1 changes into 'Secondary' contradiction S1.

But what brings about this change?

[MAD = Materialist Dialectics.]

Given the DM-theory of change, P1 must itself be composed of at least two further opposites, say: P* and P**, one of which P1 must turn into (since, as we saw, it is part of this MAD-theory that all things change into their opposites).

Hence, P1 turns into, say, P**.



But, once more: why did P1 change into P**?

Well, this must be because there is a 'contradiction' between P* and P** (or, perhaps, between P1 and P**).

But, in that case, if all things turn into their opposites, P* must change into P**, too!

There must therefore be two P**'s -- say P**a and P**b, for both of these to turn into, collectively or severally.

So, P1 and P* turn into one or other of P**a or P**b, while P** remains the same (or, it becomes one of these two, too).

But, that means that P** is either changeless (shock! horror!) or it too changes into one of the options that have already been selected for P* or P1 to become.

But, once more, P**a and P**b already exist, so P** cannot change into either of them!

Putting that 'difficulty' to one side for now, this can only mean that P1, which used to be made up of at least P* and P**, turns into P**, while P* turns into P**, too --, or it turns into something else (but into what and how?), or it disappears, or it does not change.

So, either P1 and P* merge into one entity (as they both become P**) or they turn into one or other of P**a or P**b -- or, third P** possibility (say, P**c) pops into existence as they (both?) change into it!

But if this is so, it is not easy to see how P1 could be part of the action. It must contain all these things (as internal opposites) if it is to turn into them, and yet that can only mean that it turns into one of its own parts! Once more, how can it do that if they too already exist?

Putting this to one side, too: the changes wrought in P1 and P* could not have been the result of a 'struggle of opposites', since this new opposite (i.e., P**c) does not yet exist!

On the other hand, if that opposite does exist (so that it can 'struggle' with one or both of the other two, and thereby cause the given change), neither P1 nor P* could change into it, since it already exists, too! So, these two cannot change, either.

Either that or there must be something else for one or both to change into -- but even then the same problems would simply return.

In that case, this 'theory' seems to imply that things either merge, disappear, or are created ex nihilo -- or they do not change!

Anyway, why should anything change from a P-type contradiction into an S-type, to begin with?

On this theory, this would only happen if, say, P1 already contained an S-type contradiction for it to change into. [Recall that on this 'theory', internal opposites cause change and things change into their opposites!] But where on earth did that S-type contradiction come from?

Given the above reasoning, for this to happen, P** (from earlier) must be an S-type contradiction, otherwise P1 (or P*) could not change into it. But, as we saw, P** already exists, so nothing can change into it!

Once more, these seem to be the only options available to MIST's: either P1 (or P*) merges with P**, or it (they) disappear into thin air -- or there are at least 3 versions of P** (P**a, P**b and P**c) for one or other to change into.

But these three (P**a, P**b and P**c) cannot exist, since if they did, P* and P1 could not change into them. But if they don't exist, they cannot struggle with anything in order to bring about the required change!

So, yet again, nothing actually changes (or nothing causes it!).

In that case, not only can this scenario not work, we still do not know why anything should alter from the one into the other sort of contradiction, or into anything whatsoever.

And these difficulties do not go away if concrete examples are substituted for the schematic letters used above. So, for example, why did the "primary contradiction" between China and Japan (referred to by Mao) change? On sound MAD-lines, it could only do so as a result of its own 'internal contradictions'. In that case, this "primary contradiction", C/J, must have had internal opposites C/J* and C/J**; the rest follows as before.

[MIST = Maoist Dialectician.]

More details can be found here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2009_02.htm

and here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2007.htm

Argument enough for you?

Now, if it is too difficult for you, I will dumb it down, so that even you will be able to see what a theoretical idiot Mao was.


[b]Again, justify your absurd assertion that the theory is wrong. Your argument is full of silly assertions and meaningless bs.

The truth is that, like all other Mao-groupies, you do not want 'argument', just blind obedience to the master. I provide the argument, you just ignore it.

Whistling in the dark, as I said.


Generally speaking, arguments contain more than your snide comments. Usually, someone tries to prove something with what is termed "analysis" instead of links.

Done it above. In your emotional state, you missed it again.


Didn't you get the memo?

Yes, it said "Maoism sucks." :o


Do you ever say anything meaningful at all?

Slightly more than you, it seems.

Have a nice fume... :)

[Random Precision]

My apologies once again for taking so long to respond, I was hoping SovietPants would have chimed in so I could consolidate my arguments into one post, but alas, that has not happened. :(


Originally posted by Live for the People+--> (Live for the People)This is, after all, the strategy that Mao employed while defeating first Japanese and then American imperialism.[/b]

I don't think it can be historically supported that Mao ever defeated either Japanese or U.S. imperialism. While the CCP did engage the former directly in China, for the most part this task was accomplished by a rival imperialism from the United States. As for U.S. imperialism, the only time Mao engaged it directly was in Korea, in a conflict that can at best be described as a draw. And he went on to embrace it in the person of Nixon and Kissinger 20 years later for an alliance against the Soviet Union, at the same time they were engaged in slaughtering the workers and peasants of Vietnam.


He characterized the national bourgeoisie in China at the time as a small, weak, and vacillating class. Yet it had its contradictions with imperialism and, unlike the "comprador bourgeoisie," saw its interests in national economic development that would principally be based in China, rather than having an economy geared toward trade and international finance.

You are making more of an assertion than an actual argument here. What is the exact difference between the national bourgeoisie and the comprador bourgeoisie, and what is the basis for the distinction? Were they at the head of different industries? Were they located in different parts of China? All in all, what I am asking for here is a solid Marxist analysis of the differences between the two bourgeoisies, founded in the history of the Chinese economy. Can you provide that analysis?


So it was possible to unite with it to a degree, and proceeding from the standpoint of "uniting all who could be united," Mao's strategy was that it should be part of the united front against imperialism, *under the leadership of the proletariat.*


However, for the overall process to stay on track and actually lead to the achievement of the communist goal, the proletariat must maintain all-round leadership in all of its alliances with other classes. It does not become an "instrument" of other classes or of their conceptions of emancipation. It does not turn leadership over to some other class, including the national bourgeoisie in an oppressed country.

On the principle of "uniting all who can be united", I think it is important to ask the question of why the proletariat needs the participation of bourgeois elements in its struggle, since as you say later in your post, these two have "diametrically opposed interests". This question becomes especially important in developing nations, where we see that the bourgeoisie has a choice between obliteration at the hands of a revolution by the proletariat and peasantry, or becoming the junior partner of global capital. And indeed we see that they take the latter option every time, making every possible concession to both feudal governments at home (like in Russia) and global capital abroad so that the workers will not overthrow them.

So essentially, what makes you think that the proletariat can cooperate with bourgeois elements even if the alliance is led by the former? And this is completely ignoring the fact that the bourgeoisie has never, and never will agree to be a junior partner to the proletariat in any struggle.

The only time the bourgeoisie will ever ally with the proletariat is to use them to help temporarily stave off the interests of global capital (when they feel the need to). This is the only way any such alliance can work in practice.


True enough, many other parties, including nominally 'Maoist' parties, have gotten this wrong, and have entered united fronts that were led by the national bourgeoisie, leading to disastrous results, particularly in Indonesia in 1965 (the pro-U.S. coup).

But did they ever "get it right" even in China? During the war against the Japanese, there was at best a very tense and conflicted alliance between the Kuomintang and the Communists. During this conflict, the Chinese bourgeoisie either (a) supported their representative in Chinese politics, the Kuomintang, or (b) became collaborators with Japanese imperialism. What they never were was on the same side as the working class.

So, can you even make a historical case that the original bloc of the four classes ever even existed?



And this here is the essence of economism.

You equate communist ideology, with individual workers, rather than the proletariat as class. The communist party should strive to bring in as many proletarians as possible, but what matters is if they can apply and uphold communist ideology, not how much more 'proletarian they are' than others. What matters is, was the CCP correct? Yes. Was Lenin correct? Yes he was. So, simply because there were little workers in the CCP, amounts to little. Proletarian, or communist ideology, rested within the party because its members had grasped, or taken up the proletariat's world view and applied it correctly.

How do you suggest that the party becomes the bearer of proletarian consciousness? Does it happen metaphysically somehow?

The fact is (as we all know as Marxists) that direct experience determines consciousness. If there were only a few proletarians in the party during the time it was cut off from the cities, you cannot claim somehow that it still possesses proletarian consciousness. It would be the essence of idealism to say that.


The CCP was forged out of the struggles of the proletariat in China, and had a deep bond with the proletarians in the cities all throughout the revolution. It organized general strikes and mobilized proletarians both before and throughout the people's war, and to an even greater deal during the GPCR. While the proletarians were not the main force, the were the leading force. They were the class that their vanguard party, the CCP was forged out of.

Please, cite some instances of this happening (before and during the people's war that is). I'm all ears. :)


This is in fact, against Leninist, and Marxist (since Leninism is a continuation of the latter) thinking. In What is to Be Done?, he indeed says that the communist party is not an 'organization of workers' as Trotskyists believe. Rather, the communist party is made up of the most resolute comrades that put revolution and the masses above all else.

Lenin says in WITBD?:

"Such workers, average people of the masses, are capable of displaying enormous energy and selfsacrifice in strikes and in street, battles with the police and the troops, and are capable (in fact, are alone capable) of determining the outcome of our entire movement – but the struggle against the political police requires special qualities; it requires professional revolutionaries. And we must see to it, not only that the masses “advance” concrete demands, but that the masses of the workers “advance” an increasing number of such professional revolutionaries. Thus, we have reached the question of the relation between an organisation of professional revolutionaries and the labour movement pure and simple. Although this question has found little reflection in literature, it has greatly engaged us “politicians” in conversations and polemics with comrades who gravitate more or less towards Economism. It is a question meriting special treatment. But before taking it up, let us offer one further quotation by way of illustrating our thesis on the connection between primitiveness and Economism." --emphasis added

"It is only natural to expect that for a Social-Democrat whose conception of the political struggle coincides with the conception of the “economic struggle against the employers and the government”, the “organisation of revolutionaries” will more or less coincide with the "organisation of workers". This, in fact, is what actually happens; so that when we speak of organisation, we literally speak in different tongues."

"The workers’ organisation must in the first place be a trade union organisation; secondly, it must be as broad as possible; and thirdly, it must be as public as conditions will allow (here, and further on, of course, I refer only to absolutist Russia). On the other hand, the organisation of the revolutionaries must consist first and foremost of people who make revolutionary activity their profession (for which reason I speak of the organisation of revolutionaries, meaning revolutionary Social-Democrats). In view of this common characteristic of the members of such an organisation, all distinctions as between workers and intellectuals, not to speak of distinctions of trade and profession, in both categories, must be effaced. Such an organisation must perforce not be very extensive and must be as secret as possible. Let us examine this threefold distinction." -- emphasis mine

I think you lack understanding of what exactly economism is, especially in its historical context. The economists in Russia, as represented by Julius Martov and his faction, were of the strict stagist persuasion, and argued that the role of revolutionaries in under-developed countries was to wait around while working-class consciousness developed in a straight linear model until the workers finally developed the consciousness necessary for a revolution. What Is To Be Done, I think, is best understood as a polemic against that specific trend in the RSDLP, doing what Lenin would call "bending the stick in the other direction" to straighten it out.

But anyway, fair enough, let's have ourselves a little Lenin quote war, shall we? These actually deal directly with the ones you have set out:


Originally posted by V.I. [email protected]
The basic mistake of those who polemicise against What is to be Done? today, is that they tear this work completely out of the context of a definite historical milieu, a definite, now already long-past period of development of our party ... To speak at present about the fact that Iskra (in the years 1901 and 1902!) exaggerated the idea of the organisation of professional revolutionists, is the same as if somebody had reproached the Japanese, after the Russo-Japanese war, for exaggerating the Russian military power before the war, for exaggerated concern over the struggle against this power. The Japanese had to exert all forces against a possible maximum of Russian forces in order to attain the victory. Unfortunately. many judge from the outside, without seeing that today the idea of the organisation of professional revolutionists has already attained a complete victory. This victory, however, would have been impossible if, in its time, this idea had not been pushed into the foreground, if it had not been preached in an “exaggerated” manner to people who stood like obstacles in the way of its realisation ... What is to be Done? polemically corrected Economism, and it is false to consider the contents of the brochure outside of its connection with this task.
- Collected Works, Vol. 13, p. 85 (Emphases are mine)

Furthermore, when Lenin was asked for permission to translate What Is To Be Done for the instruction of other parties, he told Max Levien, "That is not desirable; the translation must at least be issued with good commentaries, which would have to be written by a Russian comrade very well acquainted with the history of the Communist Party of Russia, in order to avoid false application."

This is not to say we should throw out What Is To Be Done? in its entirety, just, as Lenin reminds us, that we keep at the forefront its historical context when studying and applying it.

And then we have him saying in 1905:


V.I. Lenin
At the Third Congress I expressed the wish that in the party committees there should be two intellectuals for every eight workers. How obsolete is this wish! Now it would be desirable that in the new party organisations, for every intellectual belonging to the Social Democracy there should be a few hundred Social-Democratic workers.
- Collected Works, Vol. 10, pp. 31-32 (Emphases mine)

That aside, it is also crucial we remember that the Bolshevik Party had its greatest success (during the Revolution and Civil War) when there was a majority of working-class members, and its greatest failures when it lost that base.



Strawman.

The principle contradiction, as I have noted above, is the that of the imperialist bourgeoisie in the underdeveloped nations.

No. The "principal contradiction", to use Maoist terminology, is that between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. In all nations in the world. Period.


The only 'common interest' they have is to defeat imperialism. The national bourgeoisie and the proletariat have diametrically opposed interests in terms of defeating imperialism, but this is why it is always done under the leadership of the proletariat and its ideology.

I address this above.


The idea that the working class must liberate itself and cannot be liberated by other classes or individual saviors is an essential part of MLM. And in order to liberate itself, the proletariat must emancipate all of humanity--that is an idea that has been foundational to Marxism ever since the Communist Manifesto was written. In the process of doing away with all forms of exploitation and oppression, and achieving the end of all class distinctions as well as the production and social relations and ideology corresponding to those class distinctions, it is necessary to abolish classes themselves. Unlike the proletariat, the petty bourgeoisie--as a class--cannot liberate itself (or, certainly, the proletariat). This ties in with the question of "revenge." If the proletariat were to aim only to liberate itself and not the other classes, then (a) it would fail, because a united front of all classes undeOf course it does stop you. In an imperialist country, the bedrock of a communist revolution is the lower, deeper section of the proletariat, in the US mainly being the black and latino proletariat. Not that the better off workers have no stake, but they need to be won over of course to the leadership of that lower section of the proletariat. Lenin emphasized this as well.r the leadership of the proletariat is necessary, and other classes--and in particular, in the USA, the petty bourgeoisie--would not join this united front if it would not lead to their emancipation; (b) if the proletariat failed to emancipate all of humanity, there would still be classes, and the proletariat itself, which would be in power, would become a new class of exploiters (and this is not speculation; it is what actually happened in the USSR and China, where a new bourgeoisie arose from the ranks of the proletariat and its vanguard party and became the leaders in the restoration of capitalism); © it is impossible to eliminate commodity production, which contains within it the seeds of capitalist exploitation and is the material foundation of the existence of classes under capitalism, without eliminating classes.

I agree mostly, but I really don't see what this has to do with anything we've been talking about in the thread.

Anyway, since you brought it up: I agree that during a revolution, the workers will out of necessity bring non-proletarian elements under their banner. But it's important to note that this will happen by the proletariat clearly expressing its revolutionary goals to those elements, rather than trying to make formal alliances through watering down its program, which seems to be the height of Maoist idealism. Especially when we remember the certain element they would like to unite with is the bourgeoisie. :wacko:


I think this addresses very well the anti.-Marxist, economist nature of Trotskyism.

It doesn't, and this discussion is not about Trotskyism.


Of course it does stop you. In an imperialist country, the bedrock of a communist revolution is the lower, deeper section of the proletariat, in the US mainly being the black and latino proletariat. Not that the better off workers have no stake, but they need to be won over of course to the leadership of that lower section of the proletariat. Lenin emphasized this as well.

Comrade, you're approaching Lenin's works from an almost religious standpoint. The fact is that he did occasionally make mistakes, despite being the most brilliant Marxist theorist and leader of the XXth century, and one of these mistakes was the foolish and not well-thought out theory of the "labor aristocracy", which fortunately for both himself and us he did not care to develop much. Overall, I think it has been very well disproven by history.

Wow, that was a long response. I look forward to yours. :)

[Dros]

Rosa:

Since you so clearly have no understanding of Maoism, dialectics, or much of anything it would seem and no willingness to have a civil debate, I am not going to pursue this conversation with you in this thread which is actually about Maoism. I will, however, deal with you sad alleged "argument" in the philosophy section of this forum where it clearly belongs.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

drosera:


Since you so clearly have know understanding of Maoism, dialectics, or much of anything it would seem and no willingness to have a civil debate.

I am in good company then, since no one 'understands' dialectics --, not Hegel, Engels, Plekhanov, Lenin, Stalin, Mao...

Or, if they did, they all kept that secret very well hidden, for in their published and unpublished works, nothing they wrote on this mystical 'theory' makes a blind bit of sense.

And, as I have already pointed out, you do not want a debate, just another unthinking fool to join you in worship at the feet of that hideous mass murderer.


I am not going to pursue this conversation with you in this thread which is actually about Maoism. I will, however, deal with you sad alleged "argument" in the philosophy section of this forum where it clearly belongs

But, in that thread you said you would not discuss this with me anymore. Is this just another of the things you say that we should learn to take with a pinch of salt?

And dialectics is key to trying to understand Mao, for he used it to justify class colaberation with the Goumindang, among other counter-revolutionary antics.

[Dros]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 16, 2007 04:00 am


And, as I have already pointed out, you do not want a debate, just another unthinking fool to join you in worship at the feet of that hideous mass murderer.


I am not going to pursue this conversation with you in this thread which is actually about Maoism. I will, however, deal with you sad alleged "argument" in the philosophy section of this forum where it clearly belongs

But, in that thread you said you would not discuss this with me anymore. Is this just another of the things you say that we should learn to take with a pinch of salt?

And dialectics is key to trying to understand Mao, for he used it to justify class colaberation with the Goumindang, among other counter-revolutionary antics.

But, in that thread you said you would not discuss this with me anymore. Is this just another of the things you say that we should learn to take with a pinch of salt?

I said I would not respond to your ad hominem attacks. I have responded and will continue to respond to your "arguments."

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

drosera:


I said I would not respond to your ad hominem attacks. I have responded and will continue to respond to your "arguments."

Not very well, as it turns out.

And there is nothing wrong with 'ad hominems' if they unmask inconsistencies in an opponent's arguments.

You are confusing that logical device with abuse.

[I reserve abuse for those who abuse me first.]

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 05:16 pm
I think Mao adapted Marxism-Leninism to the third world
I don't know if Mao adapted Marxism-Leninism, but if he did it, it was certainly not "to the third world".

Supposing there is something valid in Mao's thoughts, it is the reasoning on how to wage a guerrilla warfare and win, in the conditions of mid-XX century China (which seems more an adaptation of Sun Tzu to modern times than an adaptation of Lenin to the third world).

But the conditions of mid-XX century in China no longer exist anywhere; to some extent, they prevailed in other places in Southeast Asia up to the seventies, but they are now gone everywhere: they include a massive peasantry constituting the majority of the populace, and so disconnected from the world market that they could effectively stop buying city products for a long time, without their life conditions plummeting immediately.

As the FARC are discovering, this does no longer exist. Peasants today are too much connected to the markets to be the water in which the revolution can swim as a fish.

Luís Henrique

[Dros]

Not very well, as it turns out.

You may respond or concede that your anti-dialectical diatribe is over.

[Dros]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+December 16, 2007 12:34 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ December 16, 2007 12:34 pm)
[email protected] 09, 2007 05:16 pm
I think Mao adapted Marxism-Leninism to the third world
I don't know if Mao adapted Marxism-Leninism, but if he did it, it was certainly not "to the third world".

Supposing there is something valid in Mao's thoughts, it is the reasoning on how to wage a guerrilla warfare and win, in the conditions of mid-XX century China (which seems more an adaptation of Sun Tzu to modern times than an adaptation of Lenin to the third world).

But the conditions of mid-XX century in China no longer exist anywhere; to some extent, they prevailed in other places in Southeast Asia up to the seventies, but they are now gone everywhere: they include a massive peasantry constituting the majority of the populace, and so disconnected from the world market that they could effectively stop buying city products for a long time, without their life conditions plummeting immediately.

As the FARC are discovering, this does no longer exist. Peasants today are too much connected to the markets to be the water in which the revolution can swim as a fish.

Luís Henrique [/b]
Mao believed that the Proletariat and their Vanguard would lead the peasents in the revolution. I don't think the ideology of People's War is at all out dated allthough I acknowledge that it is possible for it to become outdated. The tactic of fighting a rural, guerilla war with Mao's objectives is still the best revolutionary stratedgy in the third world and has been effectively employed by Nepal's Maoists and by the Shining Path (up until US military intervention).

I alsow think you are missing some of Mao's most important contributions to Marxism-Leninism such as the methodology of the Mass Line where the party seeks to synthesize the opinions of the masses at large into a revolutionary line or the notion of Cultural Revolution: that the masses need to be a check on revisionists and wrong lines within the party. This second piece is building on Stalin's theory of Aggravated Class Struggle Under Socialism (which I'm assuming a Hoxhaist would uphold).

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 04:06 pm
The tactic of fighting a rural, guerilla war with Mao's objectives is still the best revolutionary stratedgy in the third world and has been effectively employed by Nepal's Maoists and by the Shining Path (up until US military intervention).
It is certainly not a good strategy in Latin America; FARC, who apply it consistently and earnestly, have come to a stalemate. The Shining Path are little more than common criminals, and, as much as I am critic of Mao and Maoism, it is an insult to both to call the Sendero Maoist. Mao always enphasysed the need of an excellent relationship between the guerrilla and the "Popular Army"; the Shining Path killed peasants with no good reason and terrorised them, to the point that the peasantry finally choose to finger them out to the much hated Peruvian State, as a lesser evil.

I doubt very much it can be a good strategy in Asia, except perhaps (and the key word is "perhaps") in Nepal; elsewhere, the peasantry cannot afford being cut from the markets. I also doubt it can be useful in Africa, as the successive demoralisation of the varied guerrilla movements there seem to point.


I alsow think you are missing some of Mao's most important contributions to Marxism-Leninism such as the methodology of the Mass Line where the party seeks to synthesize the opinions of the masses at large into a revolutionary line

In what sence is this a Maoist inovation?


or the notion of Cultural Revolution: that the masses need to be a check on revisionists and wrong lines within the party.

The "Cultural Revolution" was a huge disaster, and does not seem to have anything to do with the masses having a check on revisionist or wrong lines: rather, it seems to have been an instrument of bureaucratic terror against independent thought within the party and the society at large.

The only way the "masses" can have a check over whatever is very simple, and has nothing to do with Mao or Maoism: grassroots proletarian democracy.


This second piece is building on Stalin's theory of Aggravated Class Struggle Under Socialism

Which isn't a theory, but an attempt to justify Stalin's crimes against the proletariat and the revolution.


(which I'm assuming a Hoxhaist would uphold).

There is a difference between the Hoxhaist Union, who are all revisionists and class traitors, and the Hoaxist Onion, which is based on the Holy Word of Karl Marx, as revealed to us by Sister Hoa X. when in onion overdose induced trance.

Luís Henrique

[Dros]

It is certainly not a good strategy in Latin America; FARC, who apply it consistently and earnestly, have come to a stalemate. The Shining Path are little more than common criminals, and, as much as I am critic of Mao and Maoism, it is an insult to both to call the Sendero Maoist. Mao always enphasysed the need of an excellent relationship between the guerrilla and the "Popular Army"; the Shining Path killed peasants with no good reason and terrorised them, to the point that the peasantry finally choose to finger them out to the much hated Peruvian State, as a lesser evil. I doubt very much it can be a good strategy in Asia, except perhaps (and the key word is "perhaps") in Nepal; elsewhere, the peasantry cannot afford being cut from the markets. I also doubt it can be useful in Africa, as the successive demoralisation of the varied guerrilla movements there seem to point.

The Shining Path is the Communist Party of Peru (Maoist). While atrocities were commited, they were a.) not nearly as wide spread as the media made them out to be, b.) induced by the Peruvian government due to the Peruvian Government's execution bands that used to kill guerillas. That contributed the paranoia, and c.) it was never party policy. The Guerrillas were defeated by US imperialism and the Peruvian Government. But before that, they did tremendous good for the peasents in the Maoist controlled areas.

I also don't see why People's War necessitates being cut off from the market. But even if it does, most of the peasent's are already cut off from the market due to the fact that they are two poor to buy anything. Globalization is in that sense isolating.


In what sence is this a Maoist inovation?

As a methodology, it was systemized and first applied by the CCP under Mao Zedong. While other movements had used precursors, it had never really been expanded and developed into a coherent and well explained methodology.


The "Cultural Revolution" was a huge disaster, and does not seem to have anything to do with the masses having a check on revisionist or wrong lines: rather, it seems to have been an instrument of bureaucratic terror against independent thought within the party and the society at large.

That is not true at all. There were problems and mistakes that were clearly made but it was a possitive experience as a whole that represented the revolutionization of ideology, culture, and economics as it had never been before.

It was used to expose and destroy the capitalist roaders and revisionists within the CCP. But in no way did it look like what you have stated above.


The only way the "masses" can have a check over whatever is very simple, and has nothing to do with Mao or Maoism: grassroots proletarian democracy.

Which existed under Mao.


Which isn't a theory, but an attempt to justify Stalin's crimes against the proletariat and the revolution.

I think it is a theory and I think it is a true theory. I think that Stalin misapplied this theory through his own faulty line and methodology with regards to dissent and democracy.


There is a difference between the Hoxhaist Union, who are all revisionists and class traitors, and the Hoaxist Onion, which is based on the Holy Word of Karl Marx, as revealed to us by Sister Hoa X. when in onion overdose induced trance.

:lol: Wow. My bad. :D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

drosera:


You may respond or concede that your anti-dialectical diatribe is over.

And why is Mao's work not a 'dialectical diatribe'?

[You need to wake up -- I responded to you in the very thread in which you posted your anti-Rosa diatribe.]

[Random Precision]

I'm still waiting for SovietPants and LFTP to reply to my posts.

But don't worry, guys, if you decide that my arguments are superior and abandon Maoism, I'll send each of you the Collected Works of Trotsky for Xmas. :P

[Rawthentic]

I don't think it can be historically supported that Mao ever defeated either Japanese or U.S. imperialism. While the CCP did engage the former directly in China, for the most part this task was accomplished by a rival imperialism from the United States.
Wait...you are joking right? If it were not Mao and the CCP's initiatives in allying with the KMT to defeat Japan, it would never have happened. Not only, that, but the CCP rallied millions and millions of peasants to engage Japan and defeat imperialism. But thats beside the point.


You are making more of an assertion than an actual argument here. What is the exact difference between the national bourgeoisie and the comprador bourgeoisie, and what is the basis for the distinction? Were they at the head of different industries? Were they located in different parts of China? All in all, what I am asking for here is a solid Marxist analysis of the differences between the two bourgeoisies, founded in the history of the Chinese economy. Can you provide that analysis?
The difference between the imperialist and national bourgeoisie is as I said here, in brief terms:

(me)

He characterized the national bourgeoisie in China at the time as a small, weak, and vacillating class. Yet it had its contradictions with imperialism and, unlike the "comprador bourgeoisie," saw its interests in national economic development that would principally be based in China, rather than having an economy geared toward trade and international finance.


So essentially, what makes you think that the proletariat can cooperate with bourgeois elements even if the alliance is led by the former? And this is completely ignoring the fact that the bourgeoisie has never, and never will agree to be a junior partner to the proletariat in any struggle.
Well you see, it can seem simple, but is in fact quite complex. First let me take a detour to actual socialist society. In this new society, the proletariat must maintain a strategic alliance with all classes, and must lead them to transform society in the interests of the proletariat. Since the interests of the proletariat are the ultimate interests of humanity, the proletariat must lead all classes to finally emancipate humanity. If it does not do this, the proletariat and its vanguard can become a new set of exploiters and bring back the horrors of capitalism. The stance that you take is a a "revenge-ist" one, meaning that the proletariat should fuck off all strata since they are the ones that suffered and should thus oppress all other strata. First of all, this is a narrow mentality. Second of all, it is not in the interests of the proletariat to become a new set of exploiters.

Now, in capitalist society, there is a relation to what I've been saying as to what happens under socialism. Take for example, certain elements of the Black bourgeoisie in the United States. In many cities, in particular like NYC or LA, Black people and Latino people, are often stopped for "driving while Black", when oppressed minorities drive Mercedes or Lexus, etc. This is national oppression, and is something that the proletariat must unite with and lead. If not, such oppression can be led and taken over by the interests of nationalist, petty-bourgeois, or even bourgeois elements. So, in essence, it is vital that the proletariat lead these elements, but lead them in the correct way, and that is towards revolution and communism.

Now, as I've stated above the division between the comprador and national bourgeoisie allowed for the proletarian leadership in the Chinese revolution. The Communists understood that they were a strata that could be united with, given that it was led by the proletariat. I hope my analogy helps. Besides, that national bourgeoisie was expropriated when the revolution came to power.



The fact is (as we all know as Marxists) that direct experience determines consciousness. If there were only a few proletarians in the party during the time it was cut off from the cities, you cannot claim somehow that it still possesses proletarian consciousness. It would be the essence of idealism to say that.
Comrade, it is wrong and economist to equate communism (the ideology of the proletariat as a class) with individual workers. Let me ask you: is it the dictatorship of the proletariat? Or the dictatorship of proletarians? Socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat as a class, and all that it comes along with, including the historical interests and objective of the proletariat, namely the emancipation of all humanity.

Proletarian ideology within a communist party is not determined by the amount of workers in a party (and I reiterate the point in my previous paragraph) but by the correctness of their line, if their line is one that can lead the proletariat and its allies in making revolution. Let me ask you comrade: was Lenin right or was he wrong? Should the workers have ignored because Lenin himself was not a worker? Of course not! Lenin was right, and because of that he led one of the most liberating revolutions in history! With this in mind, anybody can take up the ideology and world view of the proletariat, and serve the people accordingly.

Now, don't get me wrong, the communist vanguard must always strive to bring more and more proletarians into the party, but based on whether they can uphold and apply communist ideology, not necessarily because they are workers. This may seem contradictory but it is not, once you get to the essence of it. There is a huge difference between how many workers there are in a communist party, and the actual base that the communists enjoy amongst the oppressed.


This is not to say we should throw out What Is To Be Done? in its entirety, just, as Lenin reminds us, that we keep at the forefront its historical context when studying and applying it.
What is to Be Done? is a classic communist work on how to transform the consciousness of the people, and it holds for the most part true, even after a century. Maybe we should debate its relevance. Do the people still need a vanguard party? What is the correct way to transform their consciousness? As far as I am concerned, Lenin's work is a classic that needs to be more fully understood and taken up by comrades.


Anyway, since you brought it up: I agree that during a revolution, the workers will out of necessity bring non-proletarian elements under their banner. But it's important to note that this will happen by the proletariat clearly expressing its revolutionary goals to those elements, rather than trying to make formal alliances through watering down its program, which seems to be the height of Maoist idealism. Especially when we remember the certain element they would like to unite with is the bourgeoisie. wacko.gif
Notice how I never said that the proletariat should water its program down. I never meant that. I said that it must build STRATEGIC alliances with other strata so that it can lead them in the very interests of the proletariat.


Overall, I think it has been very well disproven by history.

Is there not a super-exploited section of the proletariat in the US? Like, the black and latino proletariat? And knowing this objective fact, shouldnt the communist party focus on making its base amongst this tier of the proletariat? The ones that suffer from fucked up wages, racism, pig brutality, etc?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Luís [email protected] 16, 2007 10:00 am

This second piece is building on Stalin's theory of Aggravated Class Struggle Under Socialism

Which isn't a theory, but an attempt to justify Stalin's crimes against the proletariat and the revolution.
Care to explain this quote from Lenin?

"Under capitalism the proletariat was an oppressed class, a class which had been deprived of the means of production, the only class which stood directly and completely opposed to the bourgeoisie, and therefore the only one capable of being revolutionary to the very end. Having overthrown the bourgeoisie and conquered political power, the proletariat has become the ruling class; it wields state power, it exercises control over means of production already socialised; it guides the wavering and intermediary elements and classes; it crushes the increasingly stubborn resistance of the exploiters." (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/oct/30.htm)

Now, granted that his era was one of "revolutionary democracy" and not of the DOTP (which I consider to be a separate stage from socialism altogether), but Lenin was on to something in regards to the activities of the deposed ruling class after the proper socialist revolution. Here's what I said in an earlier thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=66272):


From my heydays as a Stalinist, I got acquainted with the idea of the "aggravation of class struggle along with the development of socialism." I don't know: maybe the wrong words were used, or was this whole theory developed by Stalin wrong (given the Maoist spin of the bourgeoisie within socialism)?

The reason I ask is that there really needs to be set clear amongst all of us that there are TWO transitional periods, and not just one: DOTP and socialism. Surprisingly, Marx discussed more about the second transitional period than about the first, as if the DOTP would transition into socialism very quickly.

[From my reading of Lenin, I think there was an implication - if not explicit material - that the DOTP was a more protracted transition period than socialism per se.]

Back to the original question: how can there be a development of socialism when the DOTP hasn't even developed fully yet (emerging out of revolutionary stamocap, for example)?

[At least that's less removed from reality than the idea of revolution in ANY country directly going into the DOTP, even when emerging from post-feudal relations.]

Is it more appropriate to say that there is an aggravation of the class struggle under the DOTP instead (the Russian Civil War being a prime example of this)?

[Random Precision]

No takers for the collected works of Trotsky, I see. Oh well... :(


Wait...you are joking right? If it were not Mao and the CCP's initiatives in allying with the KMT to defeat Japan, it would never have happened. Not only, that, but the CCP rallied millions and millions of peasants to engage Japan and defeat imperialism. But thats beside the point.

If U.S. imperialism had not been at work against Japan at the other side of the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" the alliance between KMT and CCP could not have held them off there.


The difference between the imperialist and national bourgeoisie is as I said here, in brief terms:

(me)

He characterized the national bourgeoisie in China at the time as a small, weak, and vacillating class. Yet it had its contradictions with imperialism and, unlike the "comprador bourgeoisie," saw its interests in national economic development that would principally be based in China, rather than having an economy geared toward trade and international finance.

Um, yea, so you're sticking with the assertion, groovy. The only problem is that neither you nor Mao has provided any basis for the distinction between the national and comprador bourgeoisie. Neither of you has any idea of why the "national bourgeoisie" thinks its interest lies in national development and why the "comprador bourgeoisie" doesn't, or why this puts the former on the side of the proletariat. There is no real case for the distinction between them.

Also, I think this particular aspect of Maoist theory is helpful in reminding us that it's really nothing more than a Chinese mutation of Stalinism. An alliance with the bourgeois KMT was the line that the Comintern forced on the CCP which led to their slaughter, along with any hope of a true workers' revolution in China for a very long time.


Comrade, it is wrong and economist to equate communism (the ideology of the proletariat as a class) with individual workers. Let me ask you: is it the dictatorship of the proletariat? Or the dictatorship of proletarians? Socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat as a class, and all that it comes along with, including the historical interests and objective of the proletariat, namely the emancipation of all humanity.

Proletarian ideology within a communist party is not determined by the amount of workers in a party (and I reiterate the point in my previous paragraph) but by the correctness of their line, if their line is one that can lead the proletariat and its allies in making revolution. Let me ask you comrade: was Lenin right or was he wrong? Should the workers have ignored because Lenin himself was not a worker? Of course not! Lenin was right, and because of that he led one of the most liberating revolutions in history! With this in mind, anybody can take up the ideology and world view of the proletariat, and serve the people accordingly.

Now, don't get me wrong, the communist vanguard must always strive to bring more and more proletarians into the party, but based on whether they can uphold and apply communist ideology, not necessarily because they are workers. This may seem contradictory but it is not, once you get to the essence of it. There is a huge difference between how many workers there are in a communist party, and the actual base that the communists enjoy amongst the oppressed.

Well, I think Lenin was very clear on the subject (read him in my last post), so if you're going to say that, just admit this particular piece of anti-Marxist idealism of "the party being the bearer of proletarian consciousness, no matter if there are any proletarians in it" comes from Mao rather than him.

And of course it is the dictatorship of the proletariat as a class. I don't know where I ever said or implied otherwise.

Emphasizing the working-class membership of the party does not equate to reducing communism to the viewpoint of individual workers. This position is also quite different from economism, at least when that word still meant something as opposed to being a Maoist slur.


What is to Be Done? is a classic communist work on how to transform the consciousness of the people, and it holds for the most part true, even after a century. Maybe we should debate its relevance. Do the people still need a vanguard party? What is the correct way to transform their consciousness? As far as I am concerned, Lenin's work is a classic that needs to be more fully understood and taken up by comrades.

As long as we remember what Lenin's primary concerns in writing it were, and that he did indeed over-emphasize many aspects of the "professional revolutionaries" idea, which he himself admitted, and what he had to deal with under the Tsarist government, then yes.


Well you see, it can seem simple, but is in fact quite complex. First let me take a detour to actual socialist society. In this new society, the proletariat must maintain a strategic alliance with all classes, and must lead them to transform society in the interests of the proletariat. Since the interests of the proletariat are the ultimate interests of humanity, the proletariat must lead all classes to finally emancipate humanity. If it does not do this, the proletariat and its vanguard can become a new set of exploiters and bring back the horrors of capitalism. The stance that you take is a a "revenge-ist" one, meaning that the proletariat should fuck off all strata since they are the ones that suffered and should thus oppress all other strata. First of all, this is a narrow mentality. Second of all, it is not in the interests of the proletariat to become a new set of exploiters.

It must maintain an alliance with even the bourgeoisie during socialism? :blink:

I'm not taking a "revenge-ist" stance on any sense, I could hardly reconcile that to being a petty-bourgeois myself. I have in fact made it quite clear that the proletariat can ally with the peasants and petit-bourgeoisie, at least the ones who are open to revolutionary change. But I fail to see first of all how the proletariat can expect to ally with any bourgeois elements without having them stab them in the back, just like happened in Indonesia. We know from history that the bourgeoisie will choose any alternative, whether that be a feudal government, fascism, military dictatorship, slavery to global capital and so on to put a halt to a proletarian revolution.


Now, in capitalist society, there is a relation to what I've been saying as to what happens under socialism. Take for example, certain elements of the Black bourgeoisie in the United States. In many cities, in particular like NYC or LA, Black people and Latino people, are often stopped for "driving while Black", when oppressed minorities drive Mercedes or Lexus, etc. This is national oppression, and is something that the proletariat must unite with and lead. If not, such oppression can be led and taken over by the interests of nationalist, petty-bourgeois, or even bourgeois elements. So, in essence, it is vital that the proletariat lead these elements, but lead them in the correct way, and that is towards revolution and communism.

Well, oppression is not the key factor that makes a class revolutionary.


Now, as I've stated above the division between the comprador and national bourgeoisie allowed for the proletarian leadership in the Chinese revolution. The Communists understood that they were a strata that could be united with, given that it was led by the proletariat. I hope my analogy helps. Besides, that national bourgeoisie was expropriated when the revolution came to power.

Just like that? Or did they fight it at all?


Is there not a super-exploited section of the proletariat in the US? Like, the black and latino proletariat? And knowing this objective fact, shouldnt the communist party focus on making its base amongst this tier of the proletariat? The ones that suffer from fucked up wages, racism, pig brutality, etc?

The communists should focus on building their base among ALL the proletariat, while continuing to fight against racist oppression. Furthermore I don't see what this has to do with the existence of a labor aristocracy.

[Rawthentic]

Also, I think this particular aspect of Maoist theory is helpful in reminding us that it's really nothing more than a Chinese mutation of Stalinism. An alliance with the bourgeois KMT was the line that the Comintern forced on the CCP which led to their slaughter, along with any hope of a true workers' revolution in China for a very long time.

Of course, a line that Mao opposed, and led to the revolutionary forces concentrating in the countryside.


Emphasizing the working-class membership of the party does not equate to reducing communism to the viewpoint of individual workers. This position is also quite different from economism, at least when that word still meant something as opposed to being a Maoist slur.
Emphasizing working class membership of the party should always be because they can uphold communist theory and can defend their class, not simply because they are workers.


And of course it is the dictatorship of the proletariat as a class. I don't know where I ever said or implied otherwise.
Then shouldn't it be the party of the proletariat, not individual proletarians?

Care to respond to what I said about Lenin? Was he right? Or should the masses have ignored him because he was not a worker?

And let me say again: there is a huge different between the proletarian base that a communist vanguard has, and the proletarian membership within a party.

"Being determines consciousness." Yes, we all know that, and it is a basic premise of materialism. That is to say, the social being of the proletariat determines their consciousness as a class, NOT as individual workers. How hard is this to grasp, comrade?

Never mind, I use to be just as economist as you were. I encourage you to plug in my name in the search engine and you will see what I am talking about.


It must maintain an alliance with even the bourgeoisie during socialism?
During socialism, it must lead all strata in transforming society to get to communism. This is all under the framework of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Those who oppose proletarian dictatorship and show it in violent and illegal ways, will be dealt with swiftly and mercilessly.

But there is a difference between those who express disagreements with socialism, and those who act them out in illegal ways. Anyways, my paragraph about this in my last post talks of this much better.


Well, oppression is not the key factor that makes a class revolutionary.
Well, do you agree with what I said, or not?


The communists should focus on building their base among ALL the proletariat, while continuing to fight against racist oppression. Furthermore I don't see what this has to do with the existence of a labor aristocracy.
Way to ignore my post, comrade. This in fact, gets into why making revolution in an imperialist power like the US is an extremely difficult thing. Of course we need to unite the entire proletariat. But, objectively, there is a section of our class that has been bought off materially by imperialism, and by bourgeois ideology. On the other hand, we have the super-exploited section of the proletariat (black and latino) that many times suffer different layers of oppression (wage slavery, racism, pigs, etc). In a country like the US, they are the vanguard of their class because they objectively have nothing to lose, they are far more prone to be receptive to communism than the better off workers. Not that this happens spontaneously, because communists are the ones that need to take this science to them.


If U.S. imperialism had not been at work against Japan at the other side of the "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" the alliance between KMT and CCP could not have held them off there.
And I repeat my former stance on this.

[RNK]

That's not really true, RNK. How is Maoism "better" for the third world? Marxism-Leninism has fueled revolutions in Cuba, Colombia, El Salvador, Grenada, Burkina Faso and other "third world" countries. I don't think this argument holds when you look at history.

Maoism is "better" for the third world because it introduces a revolutionary theory that is not shackled by the prerequisite of "industrialization" and "civilization", which, I've found, is what most people cry about whenever a new MLM-oriented movement bursts from the bubbling cesspool of third world societies.

Marx (and, to a point, Lenin) argued that revolutions are made by industrial proletarians uniting, organizing and revolting against the bourgeois state. That is hard to do in countries where industrialization is almost non-existent; the handful of industrial workers, who usually work for western corporations for pocket change a week, can't really make an impact on an economy where 95% of all able-bodied men are either peasants or jobless. MLM offers revolution from a standpoint outside of industrialization; it offers a revolutionary path for all oppressed classes, be they proletarians, peasants, serfs, jobless, etc.

Basically, if you walked into any generic African town and started going on about how people should form unions, take control of their workplaces, and introduce self-management, you'd probably not get much reception. But walk into that same town and offer the people a way to organize militias, to seize physical territory and organize all members of society for the own benefit, then you may have something.


Also, I think this particular aspect of Maoist theory is helpful in reminding us that it's really nothing more than a Chinese mutation of Stalinism. An alliance with the bourgeois KMT was the line that the Comintern forced on the CCP which led to their slaughter, along with any hope of a true workers' revolution in China for a very long time.

Well then, we should all be very thankful that Mao disobeyed the Comintern's "orders" and broke the alliance with the KMT (a rather disobedient stance, most likely made easier by the Comintern's attempt to have Mao ousted). We should also be thankful that there are still comrades able to think outside of their self-constructed box and recognize that Mao was not some Stalinist dog leashed by Moscow.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RNK:


We should also be thankful that there are still comrades able to think outside of their self-constructed box and recognize that Mao was not some Stalinist dog leashed by Moscow.

Just as we should be thankful there are a few comrades who can think for themselves, and who see Mao for what he was: an idiot and a class-traitor.

[RNK]

Yay for Rosarian idiotic one-liners! Please try not to troll outside your own forum.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RNK:


Yay for Rosarian idiotic one-liners! Please try not to troll outside your own forum.

I am sorry, massa, did I upset another true believer...? :rolleyes:

[Random Precision]

And I repeat my former stance on this.

The objective fact here is that Mao and Chiang Kai-shek were not the only ones involved in fighting Japan. At the same time this was happening, the United States was engaging Japan in the Pacific, which would force Japan to divert resources and thus reduce its effectiveness in China. In this sense, Mao cannot claim to have defeated Japanese imperialism because U.S. imperialism did the lion's share of the work.


Of course, a line that Mao opposed, and led to the revolutionary forces concentrating in the countryside.

If "concentrating on the countryside" actually means "fleeing for their lives", then yes.


Emphasizing working class membership of the party should always be because they can uphold communist theory and can defend their class, not simply because they are workers.

Then shouldn't it be the party of the proletariat, not individual proletarians?

Care to respond to what I said about Lenin? Was he right? Or should the masses have ignored him because he was not a worker?

Of course not, where did I say or imply that?


And let me say again: there is a huge different between the proletarian base that a communist vanguard has, and the proletarian membership within a party.

"Being determines consciousness." Yes, we all know that, and it is a basic premise of materialism. That is to say, the social being of the proletariat determines their consciousness as a class, NOT as individual workers. How hard is this to grasp, comrade?

Let me change tacks a little. Lenin always said that there was a dialectical relationship between the party and the working class, with each teaching the other at various times. You say that it's not a question of individual workers in the party, and I suppose to some extent you are correct. What the question is is one of 1) workers as active members of their class within the party, and 2) the party's participation in the life of the working class. Lenin emphasized this again and again, I'll dredge up some quotes if you want me to.

Now when we apply this standard to China, it's clear that some problems emerge. We have already established the virtual absence of actual proletarians within the party, so the CCP does not meet the first standard. As for the second, after the Northern Expedition and the Long March, the CCP was left virtually no contact with industrial areas or working class life and struggles in any meaningful sense. As an internal party circular said in 1928:


... our union organizations have been reduced to a minimum, our party units in the cities have been pulverized and isolated. Nowhere in China can we find one solid industrial cell.
- Source: Chinese Communism and the Rise of Mao by Benjamin Schwartz, p. 128

And things obviously got worse as the KMT solidified its control over the cities.

So, the second qualification is also not met, because the Chinese Communists had no connection with the life of the working class during the time when, as you say, they "focused on the countryside". This quite obviously had a seriously distorting effect on the life of the party, and it is why it could not claim to bear proletarian consciousness.


Never mind, I use to be just as economist as you were. I encourage you to plug in my name in the search engine and you will see what I am talking about.

I remember well. You made a great deal of sense in those days.


During socialism, it must lead all strata in transforming society to get to communism. This is all under the framework of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Those who oppose proletarian dictatorship and show it in violent and illegal ways, will be dealt with swiftly and mercilessly.

But there is a difference between those who express disagreements with socialism, and those who act them out in illegal ways. Anyways, my paragraph about this in my last post talks of this much better.

What purpose does the bourgeoisie, as a class, have other than defending and, in some cases, restoring capitalism? While some individuals may reconcile themselves to the revolution before the rest, the class will always be reactionary and therefore must be subjected to the dictatorship of the proletariat. This is Marxism 101.


Well, do you agree with what I said, or not?

Way to ignore my post, comrade. This in fact, gets into why making revolution in an imperialist power like the US is an extremely difficult thing. Of course we need to unite the entire proletariat. But, objectively, there is a section of our class that has been bought off materially by imperialism, and by bourgeois ideology.

Uh, no. I already dealt with this in fact (Although it was addressed to SovietPants, so I'll forgive you):


Originally posted by Me
I believe you make a mistake when you say that workers in the "first world" are given "nice benefits" because of imperialism. These benefits have been won time and again through struggle (or sometimes the threat of struggle) and if the bourgeoisie did not have to give them to the workers, they certainly would not do so. Since the workers of the developed nations have made so much progress, the idea that they will not want to take back the rest of what they have won is simply ridiculous.



On the other hand, we have the super-exploited section of the proletariat (black and latino) that many times suffer different layers of oppression (wage slavery, racism, pigs, etc). In a country like the US, they are the vanguard of their class because they objectively have nothing to lose, they are far more prone to be receptive to communism than the better off workers. Not that this happens spontaneously, because communists are the ones that need to take this science to them.

Well, the "better off workers" have shown themselves clearly receptive to communism even in the US. Ever hear of the thirties, for example? And as I said in the portion I just quoted, these workers have made a great deal of progress through struggle, and once they are re-appraised of the importance of revolution, they will see that it is in their interest. As for the black and Latino proletariat, it is true enough that racist oppression has sometimes increased to receptivity to communist ideas, but it's equally true that sometimes marginalized workers will be less receptive because of their position in which they see themselves as being easily replaceable by the capitalists. The higher paid and higher skilled workers, on the other hand, often are more confident in engaging capitalism because they are more sure of their position.

On a tangential note, I agree that fighting racist oppression is a task that is key to the communist movement in this country, as it is the main factor dividing the working class. This is not to say, however, that only the black and Latino proletariat can combat it because it affects them directly, but rather that the entire proletariat should take it up as a cause to end the divisions within its body. I say this to avoid any possible confusion.

[Rawthentic]

I remember well. You made a great deal of sense in those days.
I haven't engaged in personal attacks with you, so I shall not respond until I get some sort of apology.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I suppose he's sorry you made sense then, but no longer do...

[legitimategenius]

Well I am goign to give a mere description of maoism. Maoism is the third,new, and superior stage of marxism. In other words an elevation to marxism. Maoism is the tool and and weapon with which the working class will destroy the reactionary elements. Well this is all and i could keep going on and on. So if anything people write back.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 22, 2007 06:59 am

I remember well. You made a great deal of sense in those days.
I haven't engaged in personal attacks with you, so I shall not respond until I get some sort of apology.
Calling someone an economist without examining the political context of the word is the same as calling an opponent a 'fascist', an 'authoritarian', or even worse, a 'capitalist'. It serves no purpose but to paint an opponent as incapable of leading a revolution, and as so, they are reactionary. That, my friend, is an insult.

[RNK]

So, the second qualification is also not met, because the Chinese Communists had no connection with the life of the working class during the time when, as you say, they "focused on the countryside". This quite obviously had a seriously distorting effect on the life of the party, and it is why it could not claim to bear proletarian consciousness.

That's simply not true, and I believe you're now just trying to stretch the truth in order to meet your own personal agenda. For one, while the CCP's urban industrialized cadres had been wiped out and the KMT dominated the proletarian scene, that does not change the fact that up until that point, up until the decimation of the proletarian movement in industrial centers occured, the leadership, the founding of the CCP layed within that urban proletariat. Mao himself "started" his career a student of proletarian communism, as did most of the CCP; the entire foundation of their ideoligical line came from the urban proletariat and it wasn't until said decimation of that urban proletariat that the CCP, thanks to Mao, adapted, and evolved ideoligically, and came to the conclusion that even in a country with an underdeveloped proletariat with little or no potential, it was still possible to rally all potential revolutionary forces (in this case, the peasantry) to adopt a proletarian outlook pre-emptively and carry out the necessary tasks of the revolution on behalf and in concert with the proletariat.

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of defeatists like you who seem utterly at the mercy of this wretchedly barbaric idea that any attempt at a revolutionary reconstruction of society is absolutely impossible and unworthy unless it is done in the most industrialized of countries. I think it is an affront and an insult to the billions who suffer in the 3rd world for you to sit there with that chauvanistic bullshit and preach to them that they are not allowed to rise up and defend themselves against exploitation and oppression you can't even fathom, because they are not "advanced enough" for your liking. If it were up to people like you (and thank whatever faux divinity there may be that it isn't), the billions of starving Africans, Asians and South Americans in the world would be left to rot in their own filth as their own ruling classes (and ours) impede their ability to industrialize.

And that's at the center of Maoism, isn't it? And something many western communists do not understand. In a world where the bourgeoisie removes the ability for the vast majority of the world's population from even reaching industrialization, there is an incredibly important need for a developed ideology to brush off the dogmatic psuedo-chauvanistic attitudes of western communism and offer unindustrialized people, who make up the majority of this planet, a revolutionary outlook on their lives. And that ideology is, of course, Maoism.

[RNK]

Rosa:

Since you so clearly have no understanding of Maoism, dialectics, or much of anything it would seem and no willingness to have a civil debate, I am not going to pursue this conversation with you in this thread which is actually about Maoism. I will, however, deal with you sad alleged "argument" in the philosophy section of this forum where it clearly belongs.

You'll come to soon realize (if you haven't already) that the bulk of Rosa's "argumentative abilities" relies on her belief in her superior understanding of dialectics, coupled with 3rd-grade name-calling. Since she can't formulate a qualitative arguement against Mao or Maoism or anything, really, that she doesn't agree with, her usual tactic is to either try and goad you with surprisingly imature comments, or shift the conversation towards her understanding of dialectics. She's thoroughly incapable of actually making a point, so I'd suggest, like most do, that you ignore her tantrums and continue the conversation with others in this thread who are actually capable of maintaining a good level of maturity.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

legitwhatever:


Maoism is the third,new, and superior stage of marxism. In other words an elevation to marxism. Maoism is the tool and and weapon with which the working class will destroy the reactionary elements. Well this is all and i could keep going on and on

G*d help us then! :o

[RNK]

G*d help us then!

If by "us" you mean "reactionaries, class-traitors, oppurtunists, and capitalist roaders", then yes. And I'm sure the ruling class will be more than happy to help you.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RNK:


You'll come to soon realize (if you haven't already) that the bulk of Rosa's "argumentative abilities" relies on her belief in her superior understanding of dialectics, coupled with 3rd-grade name-calling. Since she can't formulate a qualitative arguement against Mao or Maoism or anything, really, that she doesn't agree with, her usual tactic is to either try and goad you with surprisingly imature comments, or shift the conversation towards her understanding of dialectics. She's thoroughly incapable of actually making a point, so I'd suggest, like most do, that you ignore her tantrums and continue the conversation with others in this thread who are actually capable of maintaining a good level of maturity.

Not so; I just know a load more logic and Philosophy than you lot, and can run you in circles.

The only reason you have swallowed all that dialectical b*llocks from Mao is you know no logic, hence you cannot respond to my arguments, but try all manner of diversionary tactics, including moaning about me excessively.

And I claim no superior iunderstanding of 'dialectics'; as I have told you several times, it is not possible to understand this incomprehensible theory (any more that it is possible to understand the nature of the Christian Trinity -- a doctrine invented by the same philosophers who concocted the ideas Hegel pinched).

So, we are all in the same boat on this -- no one understands this mystical 'theory', and never has.

The fact that you cannot respond effectively to me is proof enough of that.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RNK:


If by "us" you mean "reactionaries, class-traitors, oppurtunists, and capitalist roaders", then yes.

Yes, I did mean you lot. :D

Thanks for owning up. :)


And I'm sure the ruling class will be more than happy to help you.

Well, you'd know since you are quite fond of the Maoist ruling class in China (post 1949).

[RNK]

Not so; I just know a load more logic and Philosophy than you lot, and can run you in circles.

I don't deny you have quite a lot of experience in dialectics/anti-dialectics. But, unfortunately, I do not really care, nor will I ever, most likely. I am far more concerned with palpable class relations and revolutionary struggle, moreso than sitting around writing papers and criticizing everything under the sun without offering up any sort of alternative whatsoever. And you can call me out on that all you want; in the end, while your fingers are tired from typing up your "loaded philosophical understanding", my feet, my arms, my body, and my soul will be exhausted from actually getting up off my ass, getting into the community, organizing revolutionaries and fighting the oppression of the state (though I'm sure you consider your work a form of "struggle", and consider yourself one of a great many "soldiers" who have devoted their life of struggle to writing and have won great victories against the ruling... sorry, lost my train of thought).


but try all manner of diversionary tactics, including moaning about me excessively.

Funny; the majority of your posts in this one thread alone are either annoying diatrabs about the mythics of "dialectics" or simpleton one-liners. There's very little to actually compete with; I do not care to argue about Mao's understanding of dialectics, due to my own lack of knowledge on the matter and to simply not caring.. and if you can provide me with some sort of advice on how I should respond to your more childish endeavours, let me know.


Yes, I did mean you lot.

A good example of the kind of attitudes I remember back in elementary school. "I know you are but what am I?", etc. One wonders how you're even capable of limiting yourself to such painfully idiotic imaturity. I can only imagine it takes a great amount of effort, because I simply can't understand how an adult can bring themselves to act in such a manner unless they have some sort of mental developmental disorder. And if you actually do, I apologize for any offense.


Well, you'd know since you are quite fond of the Maoist ruling class in China (post 1949).

Yes, I am. I am actually immeasurably fond of the revolutionary cadres, the masses of workers and peasants who rose up against the bourgeois and fuedal ruling classes, who organized themselves under the tenet of class self-determination and abolished (atleast for a time) exploitive class relations. Those are my heroes. In the end, their faults are meaningless outside of analysis; and they are, in my opinion, far better than a senile old man who lived a large part of his life in self-seclusion before being hit over the head with an ice axe.

[Dros]

Thanks RNK. I know what you mean. ;)

Rosa:

I know a bit more about philosophy than you (might think).

For an interesting discussion you might enjoy, try "The Parallax View" by Slavoj Zizek.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Drosera:


I know a bit more about philosophy than you (might think).

Well done for disguising that fact extremely effectively. :)


For an interesting discussion you might enjoy, try "The Parallax View" by Slavoj Zizek.

Ah, that anti-Leninist 'philosopher'?

No thanks, I'd rather read a bus ticket.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

RNK:


But, unfortunately, I do not really care,

Engels would be proud of you; with that attitude, Anti-Duhring would never have been written.


I am far more concerned with palpable class relations and revolutionary struggle, moreso than sitting around writing papers and criticizing everything under the sun without offering up any sort of alternative whatsoever. And you can call me out on that all you want; in the end, while your fingers are tired from typing up your "loaded philosophical understanding", my feet, my arms, my body, and my soul will be exhausted from actually getting up off my ass, getting into the community, organizing revolutionaries and fighting the oppression of the state (though I'm sure you consider your work a form of "struggle", and consider yourself one of a great many "soldiers" who have devoted their life of struggle to writing and have won great victories against the ruling... sorry, lost my train of thought).

Translated, this means: "Sorry, I cannot defend Mao's dialectic.'

And I note for all you activity in the community' the masses you are trying to influence are almost totally ignoring you; so we are equal on that score.

Except, I at least know what I am talking about.


Funny; the majority of your posts in this one thread alone are either annoying diatrabs about the mythics of "dialectics" or simpleton one-liners. There's very little to actually compete with; I do not care to argue about Mao's understanding of dialectics, due to my own lack of knowledge on the matter and to simply not caring.. and if you can provide me with some sort of advice on how I should respond to your more childish endeavours, let me know.

As I told you, I actually enjoy winding-up the defenders of mass murderers like Mao and his clique.

On a cosmic scale, I am sure that what I am doing is far, far worse than defending such a monster. What an evil person I am... :o


One wonders how you're even capable of limiting yourself to such painfully idiotic imaturity.

My secret: I do that by copying you.

Must learn to stop doing that... :blush:

Ah, the Maoist/Stalinist secret weapon, never used before: the ice-pick joke:


Yes, I am. I am actually immeasurably fond of the revolutionary cadres, the masses of workers and peasants who rose up against the bourgeois and fuedal ruling classes, who organized themselves under the tenet of class self-determination and abolished (atleast for a time) exploitive class relations. Those are my heroes. In the end, their faults are meaningless outside of analysis; and they are, in my opinion, far better than a senile old man who lived a large part of his life in self-seclusion before being hit over the head with an ice axe.

Ever so so grown up and mature; an example to us all... :rolleyes:

[Rawthentic]

Calling someone an economist without examining the political context of the word is the same as calling an opponent a 'fascist', an 'authoritarian', or even worse, a 'capitalist'. It serves no purpose but to paint an opponent as incapable of leading a revolution, and as so, they are reactionary. That, my friend, is an insult.
Please don't jump in here and try to tell me that I don't know what economism is. For one, I provided quotes from Lenin's What is to Be Done?, a communist work with great relevance to today.

Thinking that the vanguard is a 'worker's party' is economism.
Equating the class outlook of the proletariat with individual proletarians is economism.
Equating the correctness of line with how many workers there are in a party is economism.
Reducing the struggle to economic and day to day demands is economism.

And all of these are tied into What is to be Done?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LFTP:


Please don't jump in here and try to tell me that I don't know what economism is. For one, I provided quotes from Lenin's What is to Be Done?, a communist work with great relevance to today.

Read this, and then think again:

http://isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=218

Sections of Lih's book are available here:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=8AV...0KxhEFI#PPA3,M1 (http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=8AVUvEUsdCgC&dq=lars+lih&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=5h9w7wuPZq&sig=tBoe3K9EOgXF9BQeAE9Q0KxhEFI#PPA3,M1)

[Labor Shall Rule]

I recommend reading the articles that Rosa posted.

Here is a quote from one of them, regarding economism:


"The sense of political urgency characteristic of Lenin’s writing generally, and What is to be Done? specifically, reflects his belief that the growing working class resistance to Tsarism offered a political opportunity that should not be lost. With respect to the specific arguments of What is to be Done? Lih points out that Lenin was not polemicising, as generations of scholars have argued, against economism: the Russian variant of the reformism that emerged as an international phenomenon in the late 1890s. Rather he was attempting to paint his opponents within the Marxist movement as economistic because all were agreed that economism offered a mistaken programme for the left. According to the economists, workers were interested only in basic bread and butter issues, not socialist politics. The bulk of the Russian Marxist movement disagreed, and economism was marginalised before What is to be Done? was written. Lenin’s aim in What is to be Done? was to defeat his more recent opponents within the socialist movement by pinning the label economism on them. As with the criticism of economism, Lenin argued that his opponents in 1901-02 tended to dismiss the abilities of workers to reach great heights. The focus of Lenin’s polemic was therefore against those who had little faith in the independent creative potential of the working class. While this position is an inversion of our image of the ‘Leninist’ disparaging workers who were irredeemably trapped within the narrow confines of trade union consciousness, it only captures half of the political implications of his critique of economism. For the economists insisted that workers were not interested in issues of political freedom. Lenin’s critique of economism therefore involved a double inversion of the myth that has come to surround him. Not only did it involve him stressing the independent revolutionary initiative of workers, it also included the argument that workers would be interested in, and should fight for, the political freedoms enjoyed in liberal democracies."

The article goes on to explain that Lenin criticized 'tred-iunionizm', not activity within the trade unions, but focusing on 'bread and butter issues' while not simultaneously bringing a revolutionary, 'political' perspective to the table that would relate the 'day to day demands' in a broader context. The current 'Leninist' denunciation of being involved in the daily struggle for higher wages, housing, education, and healthcare for working families has little to no ground – if you voluntarily ignore those issues on grounds of 'economism', then the collective act of class struggle will not victoriously develop into the seizure of the means of production, but continue to hang in a dormant limbo.

In the events of 1905, Soviets developed out of strike committees in Moscow and Petrograd on the independent accord of the workers themselves, and many leading Bolsheviks cited Lenin's works like gospel over how the party should relate to them – they blabbered on about how since they weren't the creation of their own party, they had no business participating in them. If you read Two Tactics of Social Democracy in the Democratic Revolution, Lenin blasted these opponents, making it clear that revolutionary class consciousness could only come out of the working class's accord, and that the party would be unsuccessful if it viewed itself as a "master" that would have to "...teach the masses like they were children."

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 23, 2007 05:10 am
Thinking that the vanguard is a 'worker's party' is economism.
No it isn't.



Equating the class outlook of the proletariat with individual proletarians is economism.

No it isn't.


Equating the correctness of line with how many workers there are in a party is economism.

No it isn't.


Reducing the struggle to economic and day to day demands is economism.

Yes, it is; The "economists" theoretically limited the aspirations of the working class to an economic struggle for higher wages and better working conditions, asserting that further political struggle was the business of the liberal bourgeoisie. They denied the vanguard role of a party with the working class, considering that the party should merely observe the spontaneous process of the movement and register events.

Hope Lies in the Proles never asserted this, so you were using the term "economism" as a political slur.

[Dros]

LFTP is correct. And even if those things don't tie into your particular definition of economism, they are all bad regardless.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Now that our very own resident prophet has spoken:


they are all bad regardless.

the matter is settled. :)

[Random Precision]

EDIT: nevermind

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hope Lies With the Proles, have you read that ISJ article to which I linked above?

[Rawthentic]

Although I stand by my position that the theoretical positions I listed above are somewhat related to economism, they more acurately reflect the reification of the proletariat.

I'd be glad to argue why they are all wrong.

[Led Zeppelin]

I agree with them all being wrong, though this one seems a bit odd: "Thinking that the vanguard is a 'worker's party' is economism."

At a certain point of development a workers' party can encompass the vast majority of the vanguard of the working-class, the best (and perhaps only) example being the Bolshevik party.

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 24, 2007 02:51 am
Hope Lies With the Proles, have you read that ISJ article to which I linked above?
Yea, I was impressed as I always am with ISJ articles. I would like to read the book in its entirety, but that seems to be cost-prohibitive. I'm actually engaged now in reading Cliff's biography of Lenin, which says a lot of the same stuff, so that will have to do.

[Dros]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 23, 2007 06:13 pm
Now that our very own resident prophet has spoken:


they are all bad regardless.

the matter is settled. :)
Would you actually dispute that claim or are you just being sarcastic for fun? <_<

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 24, 2007 02:57 am
Although I stand by my position that the theoretical positions I listed above are somewhat related to economism, they more acurately reflect the reification of the proletariat.

I&#39;d be glad to argue why they are all wrong.
Did you read any of my post, or the links that Rosa posted? To balance things out, don&#39;t you think you should read some criticism, instead of listening to Avakian recordings?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

D:


Would you actually dispute that claim or are you just being sarcastic for fun?

Not for fun -- I am always seriously sarcastic with Maoists.

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

Labor Shall Rule: you must know you are asking the impossible of these Avakian clones. :rolleyes:

[Vendetta]

I have a question, if Mao truly fucked up China, why follow what he says to do?

[Dros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 05:28 am
I have a question, if Mao truly fucked up China, why follow what he says to do?
Maoists don&#39;t believe that Mao fucked up China.

Edit:


Not for fun -- I am always seriously sarcastic with Maoists.

How is it exactly that you claim to be anti-sectarian and go about attacking leftists for their political beliefs?

Secondly, are you interested in having a real conversation? Do you find a problem with my statement? If so, please show me what you percieve to be my error and defend one or more of the things LFTP was addressing.

If not, then I am uninterested in pursuing this conversation with you further.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Rosa, drosera99 has got a critical anti-sectarian point there. :(

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

D:


How is it exactly that you claim to be anti-sectarian and go about attacking leftists for their political beliefs?

Yes, I am anti-sectarian, but also anti-those-who-worship-mass-murderers.

Since I am far more anti the second, it takes precedence.


If not, then I am uninterested in pursuing this conversation with you further.

I learnt from the &#39;Mao on Contradictions&#39; thread that you, like other dialectical mystics, are not interested in &#39;conversation&#39;.

And, I think I&#39;ll get over the loss... :(

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

Hammer-as-was: yes, but it wasn&#39;t a valid one.

[Rawthentic]

Did you read any of my post, or the links that Rosa posted? To balance things out, don&#39;t you think you should read some criticism, instead of listening to Avakian recordings?
Yeah, I read your post, and it was the same dogmatic following of Lenin.

And you seem to make lots of assertions. What makes you think I don&#39;t read criticisms?

What if I told you, go listen to Avakian&#39;s recordings and read his writings? Would you? I doubt it?


. The current &#39;Leninist&#39; denunciation of being involved in the daily struggle for higher wages, housing, education, and healthcare for working families has little to no ground – if you voluntarily ignore those issues on grounds of &#39;economism&#39;, then the collective act of class struggle will not victoriously develop into the seizure of the means of production, but continue to hang in a dormant limbo.
I don&#39;t know if this is in reference to me or not, but I have never denunciated supporting the daily struggles of the proletariat. What I mean by the &#39;daily struggles&#39; is essentially the struggle for piecemeal reforms within the capitalist system, as if that could raise proletarian class consciousness. In particular I mean the struggle for better wages within the system. It is not that communists should not support these and bring a communist line to these struggles, but this does not and cannot raise their sights to the goal of making revolution and the role they play in it. This cannot show them how different classes respond to different phenomena in society (to paraphrase Lenin).

Have any of you read this article by Carl Dix? : Destroying Homes for the Holidays in New Orleans (http://revcom.us/a/113/new-orleans-en.html). I do not know if this could be considered a day to day demand in the sense I am speaking to, but it is part of a major political battle that emerged from the suffering of the masses in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Revolution Club members led the people in the housing to defend their homes, and in the process were able to engage the people into why the system cannot meet their needs, etc.

But the point I am trying to get to is that communists are not trade union secretaries, they are not labor movement leaders. They are &#39;tribunes of the people" (like Lenin said) that shine the light on all the glaring injustices of the capitalist system and lead the masses in combating them. When we do this, the masses many times voluntarily take up and wage political struggle when there insights are raised (and I like to bring in the struggle to Free the Jena 6, here).


If you read Two Tactics of Social Democracy in the Democratic Revolution, Lenin blasted these opponents, making it clear that revolutionary class consciousness could only come out of the working class&#39;s accord, and that the party would be unsuccessful if it viewed itself as a "master" that would have to "...teach the masses like they were children."
Once again, I don&#39;t know if this is intended as a straw man, but I&#39;ll respond anyway. I never said that the vanguard party should be a master and treat the masses of people like stupid children. This is completely contrary to Marxist (-Leninist-Maoist) theory, and the theory of the mass line (and nearly everything that Mao stood for).

The point is here: is WITBD? outdated? I believe is a crucial work on how the consciousness of the people can be transformed. If people disagree, let&#39;s get into that.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 05:28 am
I have a question, if Mao truly fucked up China, why follow what he says to do?
China was a seriously "fucked-up" country before Mao. Much before.

Luís Henrique

[Vendetta]

Originally posted by Luís Henrique+December 24, 2007 01:45 pm--> (Luís Henrique @ December 24, 2007 01:45 pm)
[email protected] 24, 2007 05:28 am
I have a question, if Mao truly fucked up China, why follow what he says to do?
China was a seriously "fucked-up" country before Mao. Much before.

Luís Henrique [/b]
No disagreement there, but what did Mao improve on?

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 02:49 pm
No disagreement there, but what did Mao improve on?
That&#39;s a different issue, that should not be confused by statements like "Mao fucked up China", that seem to absolve "Western" imperialism for China&#39;s problems, don&#39;t you think so?

Luís Henrique

[Rawthentic]

RSOA, I strongly recommend taking a look at the Set the Record Straight Project (http://www.thisiscommunism.org). It comes from a communist point of view and I believe it does a good job at dispelling bourgeois lies about the Soviet Union and China.

[Vendetta]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 24, 2007 05:37 pm
RSOA, I strongly recommend taking a look at the Set the Record Straight Project (http://www.thisiscommunism.org). It comes from a communist point of view and I believe it does a good job at dispelling bourgeois lies about the Soviet Union and China.
Thanks for the link...any suggestions on where to begin?

[Labor Shall Rule]

But it does raise their sights to the goal of making revolution and the role they play in it. Its obvious that whatever raises the confidence, the autonomy, the self-initiative, the participation, the solidarity, the egalitarian tendencies and the self-activity of the working class should be meaningful to a revolutionary communist.

This is why socialists should bring a class perspective to militant trade-unionists within the rank-in-file itself. They should organize in industries that are collective and socially necessary - work that provides the means for life as well as a source of profit. To ignore that struggle, and not recognize the building of working class organizations as the only prerequisite to genuine social change, is to not have a movement at all.

The RCP, as far as I am concerned, are no longer officially concerned with the unions. Ever since they switched from their "workerist" orientation, they no longer engage in point of production organizing and trade union struggle. They once worked with coal miners in the Appalachians, black auto-workers in San Fransisco and Detroit, and were involved in wild-cat strikes across the Mid-West, but now they are seeking to "repolarize" activist groups towards a "revolutionary perspective". Thats not a strategy for success.

[Random Precision]

To complement LFTP&#39;s recommendation, I would encourage you to read The Mandate of Heaven (http://www.marxists.de/china/harris/index.htm) by Nigel Harris, which is a pretty fucking excellent analysis of China before and after the revolution, as well as "Mao Tsetung Thought".

I won&#39;t discourage you from reading both, I think it&#39;s important to get the perspective of both sides so you can figure out where you stand better.

[Rawthentic]

But it does raise their sights to the goal of making revolution and the role they play in it. Its obvious that whatever raises the confidence, the autonomy, the self-initiative, the participation, the solidarity, the egalitarian tendencies and the self-activity of the working class should be meaningful to a revolutionary communist.
Of course it is meaningful, and that should of course be strengthened. But to think that through these piecemeal struggles, to think that if communists lead these struggles, that the proletariat will somehow jump to a revolutionary consciousness, well no, that won&#39;t happen.


The RCP, as far as I am concerned, are no longer officially concerned with the unions. Ever since they switched from their "workerist" orientation, they no longer engage in point of production organizing and trade union struggle. They once worked with coal miners in the Appalachians, black auto-workers in San Fransisco and Detroit, and were involved in wild-cat strikes across the Mid-West, but now they are seeking to "repolarize" activist groups towards a "revolutionary perspective". Thats not a strategy for success.
More like seeking to repolarize society in an attempt to "hasten while awaitening" the development of a revolutionary situation. Comrade, I simply don&#39;t understand why it is you try to act as if you know what the Party line is on these issues. The fact is, you don&#39;t, and that&#39;s not what it is. If you are serious about getting to the truth as to why the Party abandoned workerism and economism, please contact them, and debate it with them. Then you can come back and attempt to make an argument based on that.

[Labor Shall Rule]

The strike is the quintessential sign of the strength of the class struggle - it plans and disciplines the working class. The nature and the course of the strike is dependent on the the trend and character of the political organization that leads it, therefore, it can and will jump to revolutionary class consciousness, but that is entirely dependent on the party.

And yes, I&#39;ve done my reading. I just got done reading Create Public Opinion, Seize Power&#33; and The United Front Under the Leadership of the Proletariat in the Draft Programme, and it is boring, stale, and honestly offers no strategy outside of "well, we&#39;ll go out and sell a paper, maybe make some allies with other popular organizations, and then the proletariat will be stronger." I was also just reading how the party had "workerist" tendencies when it was first founded, and that it was involved in "point of production" and trade union work then. Now, if you noticed, the party doesn&#39;t emphasize that much anymore. I used their search engine, and was unable to find anything on strike-actions that they were directly involved in.

[Rawthentic]

What you read about the Party has not much to do with our discussion. I seriously recommend reading the article in this week&#39;s paper titled: Enriched "What is to Be Done?"-ism (http://revcom.us/a/113/makingrevolution-p2-01-en.html). There is a particular section in this series that talks about the role of the communist newspaper as a "collective organizer" and "collective propagandist." I suggest you read it instead of talking as if we were all just a bunch of "paper sellers."

Strikes are important, I am not saying they are not. But they are expressions of individual or groups of workers against their employers. As I said, it is important for communists to strengthen these and take their politics to them, they are not the "quintessential sign" of the class struggle. That "sign" comes when we have mass political warfare on a class terrain; the proletariat armed with communist ideology and leadership against the bourgeoisie. Let&#39;s take a look at what is happening in New Orleans with the housing problem. It is a key struggle in determining the position of Black people in the United States. It is also, for revolutionaries, a decisive struggle in what our ability is going to be to make revolution in this country. If they can totally destroy all of the Black proletarian neighborhoods in New Orleans and place Black proletarians into these tiny little 150 low-income apartments dispersed through a neighborhood of 4000 middle income houses (and dispersing Black proletarians around the country), this will have a dramatic effect on our ability to organize the proletariat for revolution. It will dramatically effect the ability of revolutionaries to maneuver in the coming period (and I&#39;m paraphrasing a Party supporter here).

What about the struggle to free the Jena 6? What does it mean when thousands of Black people rally around the articles and positions of Revolution newspaper and actually travel to Louisiana from all over the country to take part in these protests. These are the mass political struggles that communists need to be leading and learning from&#33; These (the New Orleans housing and the Jena 6) are what raise the insights of the oppressed to revolution and why this capitalist-imperialist system is a disaster for the majority of humanity (provided communists expose this).

Some sections of Create Public Opinion&#33; Seize Power&#33;:


There&#39;s so much in common in people&#39;s experience that&#39;s actually hidden from them--I&#39;m speaking here specifically about the basic proletarian masses--the common oppression that comes out when masses actually do get together and speak bitterness together.

You could be somebody Black in a housing project in Los Angeles, living right next door to a Mexican immigrant in the same housing project and having so many things in common in terms of what the system has done to you and the ways you&#39;ve resisted it and so on, and yet have no inkling of that and only be caught up in the daily antagonisms and hassles--what the spontaneous working of the system and the conscious policy of the ruling class is fostering. So it&#39;s very important for us to bring out not only the common interests but also, concretely, common experiences and common struggle, by applying historical materialism, enabling people to see this....

Our Party has an irreplaceable, indispensable role overall, in terms of bringing this alive for the masses in a way that really paints a vivid picture for them--really enables them to see their common class interests and how different strands of experience, even internationally, all tie together in terms of a common class interest--and also how this is distinguished from other classes and strata, but at the same time what the basis is for uniting with or winning over these other strata (or at least winning them to friendly neutrality). People really need to understand this.


Within this whole process, the newspaper plays a pivotal role, in exposing the enemy and its crimes but also in rousing the people to rise in struggle and in supporting the outbreaks of protest and rebellion that do repeatedly erupt among the masses. Our experience has repeatedly shown that when major social and political questions grip society and major struggles break out--the Persian Gulf War, the 1992 L.A. Rebellion, the battle against Proposition 187 in California, the slashing of welfare and other ruling class assaults on the poor, the attacks on affirmative action, the fight to stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal and to win his freedom, the battles around abortion, and so on--people who have been regularly reading the RW and have been trained in (or at least significantly influenced by) the line of the Party and the viewpoint and methodology of MLM are able to more fully grasp the essence and importance of these questions and generally to act in a more conscious and determined way around them.

I don&#39;t think you really did read them, and if you did, horribly misunderstood them (and Lenin).

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by RNK+--> (RNK)That&#39;s simply not true, and I believe you&#39;re now just trying to stretch the truth in order to meet your own personal agenda. For one, while the CCP&#39;s urban industrialized cadres had been wiped out and the KMT dominated the proletarian scene, that does not change the fact that up until that point, up until the decimation of the proletarian movement in industrial centers occured, the leadership, the founding of the CCP layed within that urban proletariat. Mao himself "started" his career a student of proletarian communism, as did most of the CCP; the entire foundation of their ideoligical line came from the urban proletariat and it wasn&#39;t until said decimation of that urban proletariat that the CCP, thanks to Mao, adapted, and evolved ideoligically, and came to the conclusion that even in a country with an underdeveloped proletariat with little or no potential, it was still possible to rally all potential revolutionary forces (in this case, the peasantry) to adopt a proletarian outlook pre-emptively and carry out the necessary tasks of the revolution on behalf and in concert with the proletariat.[/b]

I of course acknowledge the proletarian-oriented background of the Chinese Communists, but this background is not particularly helpful in a situation where the party has no continuing participation in the life of an organized working class. As their orientation switched to the peasants and countryside, their policies and theory became quite distorted, as will inevitably happen to a communist organization, however revolutionary that stops focusing on the proletariat. Accordingly, here is a mountain of quotes I have been saving for a while until the time was right. These all demonstrate how Mao and the CCP&#39;s theory and practice became distorted after the focus on the countryside:

The workers were to be no more than an ancillary force in their liberation:

Only after wiping out comparatively large enemy units and occupying the cities can we arouse the masses on a large scale and build up a unified political power over a number of adjoining counties. Only thus can we arouse the attention of the people far and wide.
- Mao, January 1930, from Selected Works Vol. 1, p. 123

They were not to demand increases in their standard of living during the "people&#39;s war":


The workers have been advised not to put up demands which may be in excess of what can be granted by the enterprise in question. In the non- Soviet districts, it is our intention not to accentuate the anti-capitalist struggle.

Or actually do anything to benefit themselves during the following Civil War:


[The workers should] co-operate with the capitalists, so that maximum production can be attained.
- Mao, Peking Radio Broadcast, 4 June 1949

Nor were party cadre to instruct workers to demand such increases or put forth slogans to that effect:


Do not lightly advance slogans of raising wages and reducing hours. In wartime, it is good enough if production can continue and existing working hours and original wage levels can be maintained. Whether or not suitable reductions in working hours and increases in wages are to be made later will depend on economic conditions, that is, on whether enterprises thrive.

Do not be in a hurry to organize the people of the city to struggle for democratic reforms and improvements in livelihood. These matters can be properly handled in the light of local conditions only when the municipal administration is in good working order, public feeling has become calm, surveys have been made.
- Mao, Selected Works Vol. 4, p. 248

After the victory, exploitation was to continue at an increased pace:


Next, there is the implementation of a ten-hour day and progressive piece-rate wage systems – using wages to increase production and raise labour consciousness ... the egalitarian supply wage system obliterates the distinctions between skilled and unskilled labour and between industriousness and indolence – thereby lowering worker activism; we must replace the supply system with a progressive piece-rate system to stimulate worker activism and increase the quantity and quality of output.
- Mao, 1942, quoted in Wage patterns and policy in Modern China, 1919-1972 by Christopher Howe, p 59

Even the poorest peasants were to have their liberation put off:


Owing to the alliance with the rich peasants, the interests of the agricultural labourers were sacrificed ... We feared the counter-revolutionary turn of the rich peasants and consequently asked the agricultural labourers to lower their demands
- Central Committee Resolution of August 1929


Because the number of rich peasants was very small, we decided in principle to leave them alone and to make concessions to them. But the ‘leftists’ did not agree. They advocated ‘giving the rich peasants bad land, and giving the landlords no land’. As a result, the landlords had nothing to eat and some of them fled to the mountains and formed guerilla bands.
-Mao, December 1947, from Selected Works Vol. 2, p. 441


this is not the time for a thorough agrarian revolution ... On the one hand, our present policy should stipulate that the landlords shall reduce rent and interest, for this serves to arouse enthusiasm of the basic peasant masses for resistance to Japan, but the reductions should not be too great.
- Mao, On Policy, December 1942


Recognize that most of the landlords are anti-Japanese, that some of the enlightened gentry also favour democratic reforms. Accordingly, the policy of the party is only to help the peasants in reducing feudal exploitation but not liquidate feudal exploitation entirely, much less to attack the enlightened gentry who support democratic reforms ... The policy of liquidating feudal exploitation should only be adopted against stubbornly unrepentant traitors.
- Mao, Selected Works Vol. 4, p. 278

And the poor would continue to suffer:


Do not raise the slogan, ‘Open the granaries to relieve the poor’. Do not foster among them the psychology of depending on the government for relief.
-Mao, Selected Works Vol. 4, p. 279



RNK
Frankly, I&#39;m sick and tired of defeatists like you who seem utterly at the mercy of this wretchedly barbaric idea that any attempt at a revolutionary reconstruction of society is absolutely impossible and unworthy unless it is done in the most industrialized of countries. I think it is an affront and an insult to the billions who suffer in the 3rd world for you to sit there with that chauvanistic bullshit and preach to them that they are not allowed to rise up and defend themselves against exploitation and oppression you can&#39;t even fathom, because they are not "advanced enough" for your liking. If it were up to people like you (and thank whatever faux divinity there may be that it isn&#39;t), the billions of starving Africans, Asians and South Americans in the world would be left to rot in their own filth as their own ruling classes (and ours) impede their ability to industrialize.

And that&#39;s at the center of Maoism, isn&#39;t it? And something many western communists do not understand. In a world where the bourgeoisie removes the ability for the vast majority of the world&#39;s population from even reaching industrialization, there is an incredibly important need for a developed ideology to brush off the dogmatic psuedo-chauvanistic attitudes of western communism and offer unindustrialized people, who make up the majority of this planet, a revolutionary outlook on their lives. And that ideology is, of course, Maoism.

Oh dear. I think I&#39;ll have to send you some sturdier material to construct your straw-men with for Xmas.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I will say this, in spite of my non-Maoist stance: without them, the Nepalese monarchy would still be around for years to come (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071224/ap_on_re_as/nepal_monarchy).

[bezdomni]

I&#39;d first like to apologize to comrade hope lies in the proles for my abysmally late response to this thread. There have been lots of contradictions popping up for me...everything from getting stuck in an airport because of snow to massive amounts of school work to doing political work in new orleans have kept me away from revleft and my computer in general lately.

That said, I think comrade LFTP did a good job in the first few pages of this thread in his discussion with hope lies in the proles and I&#39;d like to make it clear that LFTP and I have basically the same line and I back more or less everything that he has said here so far.

It&#39;s great that there are so many comrades who are actually engaging with Maoism, and although I disagree emphatically with the Trotskyists - I think that there is a lot to learn from their responses here, and hopefully that they think there is a lot to learn from us as well.

Now, there is still a lot to respond to and clarify here.
-------------------------------------------------------------

I think one of the most important questions that has arisen in this thread is actually a question of economism. I don&#39;t think it has so much to do with Maoism per se, but it naturally arose in this thread because I think most of the criticisms of Maoism in this thread are generally coming from a position of economism (which I would largely equate to Trotskyism).

And yes, I know this thread is not "about Trotskyism"...but it is impossible to respond to Trotskyist criticisms without addressing Trotskyism and the economism that is so deeply attached to it.

A great example of this economism is Labor Shall Rule&#39;s last post. In fact, the name Labor Shall Rule is itself very indicative of economism&#33;

Revolution, like the internets, is serious business. :P


The strike is the quintessential sign of the strength of the class struggle - it plans and disciplines the working class. The nature and the course of the strike is dependent on the the trend and character of the political organization that leads it, therefore, it can and will jump to revolutionary class consciousness, but that is entirely dependent on the party.

I think there is an element of truth here, but also an oversimplification of what revolution is and how it is made is actually about. On the one hand, strikes play an important role in revolutionary struggle...but it must also be made clear that strikes are not the revolutionary struggle. What we need is not "one big union" (be it Hoxhaist or otherwise), but a solid core of revolutionary communists from all different backgrounds and perspectives.

This leads into comrade Led Zeppelin&#39;s incorrect denial that calling for a "mass party of labor" as a communist party is economist. There is nothing more economist than trying to replace the struggle for the overall liberation of humanity (via communist revolution led by the vanguard of the proletariat organized into a revolutionary communist part and the subsequent dictatorship of the proletariat) with just trying to organize all of the workers and making demands for higher wages or more benefits. Yeah, it&#39;s good to organize unions and to have a struggle in the workplace - but this struggle will not lead to revolution or classless society.

There is a major difference between trying to take a bigger slice of the capitalist&#39;s pie and taking over the whole goddamn pie factory&#33;

This difference between the Trotskyists and the Maoists leads to a huge difference in the way we go about trying to make revolution, and in fact, the way that we view the revolutionary transformation of society in general. This manifests itself in many subtle ways, but fundamentally on four questions of practice:
1) The question of the role and composition of the communist party.
2) The question of "socialism in one country".
3) The national question.
4) The question of "permanent revolution" vs. "uninterrupted revolution by stages".

We have already discussed at length the question of the communist party as necessarily being a party of revolutionary communists rather than a "mass party of workers" - but we have not so much discussed what the tasks of the communist party is. Is it to lead the workers in their day to day struggles against the bosses, or is it to raise the consciousness of the masses to make a revolution? Furthermore, how is this done?

Here, there is a fundamental break between the Trotskyists and the Maoists; we are faced with the question of the picket line or the mass line. Is our task to bring sandwiches to workers who are on strike, or to "learn from the masses and then teach them"?

In the words of Mao,
"In all the practical work of our Party, all correct leadership is necessarily "from the masses, to the masses". This means: take the ideas of the masses (scattered and unsystematic ideas) and concentrate them (through study turn them into concentrated and systematic ideas), then go to the masses and propagate and explain these ideas until the masses embrace them as their own, hold fast to them and translate them into action, and test the correctness of these ideas in such action. Then once again concentrate ideas from the masses and once again go to the masses so that the ideas are persevered in and carried through. And so on, over and over again in an endless spiral, with the ideas becoming more correct, more vital and richer each time. Such is the Marxist theory of knowledge.."

Such is the basis of the mass line and the way that Maoists work with the masses. We listen attentively to the demands and concerns of the masses and concentrate them in our political line. We struggle for the people under capitalism, but fundamentally fight for revolutionary consciousness and the radical transformation of society. Everything we do is about revolution&#33;.

I would like to speak briefly from experience here. I used to be a Trotskyist and was aligned and somewhat active with the International Marxist Tendency (IMT), which is the Worker&#39;s International League (WIL) here in the U.S. The only political work I did the entire time I was a member of the group was sell the bi-monthly magazine to people in my high school and on a street in Providence to the petty bourgeoisie. I am not saying that the IMT does not engage in other tactics, I am just trying to point out that I never actually did work or saw anybody do work with the proletariat; and that they accepted me as a member even though, in retrospect, I was very undeveloped politically at the time (just read through my old posts and you will get a sense of this).

I know that the IMT has a footing in several unions in the U.S. (the teamsters, I recall), but as I have said previously - being in the unions doesn&#39;t even mean you are connected to the proletariat.

In my work with the RCP, I have engaged with the masses in the projects, undocumented day laborers waiting for jobs, spanish-speaking janitors on strike and also all kinds of people from the middle strata.

I am not trying to promote any sort of sectarianism, I am just pointing out the different ways that Trotskyists and Maoists carry out political work.

In short, Maoists favor the mass line where communist leadership concentrates the correct ideas of the masses by being a participant in struggle first and a leader second; while Trotskyists tend to favor developing political line out of previous Marxist works (which they rarely understand) and statistics.

Anarchists often criticize Leninists of trying to form a "self-appointed vanguard over the proletariat", rather than a vanguard of the proletariat. In the case of Trotskyists, this turns out to be a very apt criticism. Fortunately, Trotskyism is very distinct from Marxism-Leninism (a term Trotskyists prefer to avoid because of its &#39;Stalinist&#39; connotations).

This brings us to the question of "socialism in one country" (which is derived from the implications of Lenin&#39;s theory of imperialism, most important, the law of uneven development).

From 1906 onward, Trotsky postulated that a revolution in Russia would have to lead to a global socialist revolution or crumble entirely. The Russian Revolution would have to expand beyond its own borders (i.e. into germany) very quickly or it would be defeated either by the European imperialist powers or fall to internal counterrevolution.

Trotsky says:
"Without the direct State support of the European proletariat the working class of Russia cannot remain in power and convert its temporary domination into a lasting socialisitc dictatorship...

...Left to its own resources, the working class of Russia will inevitably be crushed by the counter-revolution the moment the peasantry turns its back on it. It will have no alternative but to link the fate of its political rule, and, hence, the fate of the whole Russian revolution, with the fate of the socialist revolution in Europe."

What Trotsky fundamentally fails to acknowledge is that because of uneven development, the conditions that make revolutionary situations possible do not all arise simultaneously. The worldwide socialist revolution will not happen quickly. The "uneven ripening of the conditions for a revolutionary explosion excludes its simultaneous occurrence in every country".

A lot of this incorrect idea (that socialism can be maintained and, in fact, flourish in relatively backwards countries) is due to Trotsky&#39;s misunderstanding of the role of the peasantry in socialist revolution.

When Trotsky finally got into the struggle between Zinoviev/Kamenev and Bukharin (about a year after the question of &#39;socialism in one country&#39; started to get addressed), Stalin came out against Trotsky (having already essentially refuted Trotsky&#39;s line in his refutation of Zinoviev, who Trotsky also disliked) concluding that the logic of the opposition was that "the one prospect left for our revolution [is] to vegetate in its own contradictions and rot away while waiting for the world revolution".

To finish my response to this question, I&#39;ll contribute a bit more to the Lenin quote war:


Socialism is no longer a matter of the distant future or an abstract picture..difficult as this task may be...and numerous as the difficulties may be that it entails, we shall - not in a day but in a few years - all of us together fulfill it whatever the cost, so that NEP Russia will become Socialist Russia.


With most of the population organized in co-operatives, socialism...will achieve its aims automatically.

And finally, Lenin defines socialism in his pamphlet "On Cooperation"(in a way that Trotsky was very careful to not polemicize against until after Lenin died and even still did so in the guise of arguing against &#39;Stalinism&#39; rather than Leninism).


Given social ownership of the means of production, given the class victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, the system of civilised co-operators is the system of socialism.

Stalin understood that socialism could not achieve its "final victory" in only one country alone, but that one country could be socialist.

So, when hope lies in the proles says that Maoists are just a "mutation" of Stalinists, we do not flinch to this supposed criticism. Instead, we uphold Stalin as a Marxist-Leninist and put forward Maoism as a higher synthesis (call it a mutation, if you should like - I shall never quarrel over words as long as I am told their meaning).

This post has taken up a lot of my time and I have obligations in the near future. I&#39;ll continue on the national question and on permanent revolution later.

[Rawthentic]

In response to what Hope Lies in the Proles said:

I see that most of those quotes are before the revolutionary seizure of power (1949), a period where the CCP maintained a strategic alliance with the national bourgeoisie in to defeat Japanese imperialism (this is not to discuss the correctness of that line or otherwise). From the seizure of power onward, all the exploiting classes were expropriated, the national bourgeoisie&#39;s property being last for the reason I mentioned above.

Mao wrote in 1952 in The Contradiction Between the Working Class and Bourgeoisie is the Principal Contradiction in China (http://marx2mao.com/Mao/WCB52.html):


With the overthrow of the landlord class and the bureaucrat-capitalist class, the contradiction between the working class and the national bourgeoisie has become the principal contradiction in China; therefore the national bourgeoisie should no longer be defined as an intermediate class.


What does this mean? Well, for one, the period of the anti-imperialist struggle against Japan was over, and the national bourgeoisie was no longer a strata that could be allied with under the leadership of the proletariat. Their purpose was done in so far as achieving the desired results was concerned. They were expropriated fully in time, as a result.

Merry Xmas to you all.

[Random Precision]

After reading those quotes however, can one really claim Mao was not watering down his program to preserve the alliance with the bourgeoisie, as I have been saying all along?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ So did Lenin when he sold out on the Finnish working class. :(

[Labor Shall Rule]

But allow me to repeat myself - you can&#39;t have "mass political warfare on a class terrain" unless you have working class organization in the first place, which is something that we do not currently have. The source of all power in production is the working class. It is human labor-power, rather than private ownership, that produces the wealth of the earth. If we accept that premise, then we must recognize that work is our most powerful tool - and by organizing around it, we empower the working class, create these organizations that are guided on a revolutionary perspective, and build a strong current of active, class-conscious workers that are the ultimate precondition to the development of a genuine communist party.

There will be several factors that will fuel this serious business, but proclivity for symbolic actions and campaigns that flows from it will not alone create class consciousness - the workplace; the abode of production, is the center of collective participation of laboring peoples, and as so, it is the natural base of discussion and direct action by them. This does not assume that socialist consciousness flows automatically from "economic" struggles, but that these struggles bring people together at the heart of the social relations of production. Except on those rare occasions when the class struggle breaks into open political warfare, it is at the workplace that the tug of war between labor and capital is sharpest and most recurring. It is at the workplace that the conservative ideas and assumptions that blunt class consciousness are most consistently confronted. Is that an &#39;economist&#39; presumption, or have you all rejected materialism now?

The actions of Jena 6 and in New Orleans are great, but once again, how is that struggle social in nature? We need to build build a movement based on what Lenin called "the politics of millions, not thousands." The confrontation of the working class with the capitalist class - the cross-communication between workers of different races and backgrounds, the education that builds an understanding of how the profit system functions, and the greater links formed between other industries and in community affairs - is what will truly build a mass movement.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by Hope Lies in the [email protected] 25, 2007 02:43 am
After reading those quotes however, can one really claim Mao was not watering down his program to preserve the alliance with the bourgeoisie, as I have been saying all along?
What particularly was being "watered down" in Mao&#39;s programme? The alliance with the national bourgeoisie was a "necessary error" to combat japanese imperialism, just like the NEP was a necessary error (in Lenin&#39;s words) to develop socialism in Russia.

We have no love for the bourgeoisie, but as Leninists we are of the conviction that you cannot have socialism without breaking entirely with imperialism, which is something that both the proletariat and the sections of the national bourgeoisie have interest in doing.

Although, I believe your original assertion was that the national bourgeoisie (and the aristocracy of labor) does not exist. This leads me to conclude that you think imperialism does not exist, since both strata logically (and empirically) exist due to the dominance of finance capital in political economy.

I mean no offense in asking this, but have you actually read Imperialism?

[black magick hustla]

i am on the process of rereading that and i dont remember anything about cross class anti-imperialism

[Random Precision]

I think there is an element of truth here, but also an oversimplification of what revolution is and how it is made is actually about. On the one hand, strikes play an important role in revolutionary struggle...but it must also be made clear that strikes are not the revolutionary struggle. What we need is not "one big union" (be it Hoxhaist or otherwise), but a solid core of revolutionary communists from all different backgrounds and perspectives.

This leads into comrade Led Zeppelin&#39;s incorrect denial that calling for a "mass party of labor" as a communist party is economist. There is nothing more economist than trying to replace the struggle for the overall liberation of humanity (via communist revolution led by the vanguard of the proletariat organized into a revolutionary communist part and the subsequent dictatorship of the proletariat) with just trying to organize all of the workers and making demands for higher wages or more benefits. Yeah, it&#39;s good to organize unions and to have a struggle in the workplace - but this struggle will not lead to revolution or classless society.

There is a major difference between trying to take a bigger slice of the capitalist&#39;s pie and taking over the whole goddamn pie factory&#33;

Here, there is a fundamental break between the Trotskyists and the Maoists; we are faced with the question of the picket line or the mass line. Is our task to bring sandwiches to workers who are on strike, or to "learn from the masses and then teach them"?

In the words of Mao,

"In all the practical work of our Party, all correct leadership is necessarily "from the masses, to the masses". This means: take the ideas of the masses (scattered and unsystematic ideas) and concentrate them (through study turn them into concentrated and systematic ideas), then go to the masses and propagate and explain these ideas until the masses embrace them as their own, hold fast to them and translate them into action, and test the correctness of these ideas in such action. Then once again concentrate ideas from the masses and once again go to the masses so that the ideas are persevered in and carried through. And so on, over and over again in an endless spiral, with the ideas becoming more correct, more vital and richer each time. Such is the Marxist theory of knowledge.."


Such is the basis of the mass line and the way that Maoists work with the masses. We listen attentively to the demands and concerns of the masses and concentrate them in our political line. We struggle for the people under capitalism, but fundamentally fight for revolutionary consciousness and the radical transformation of society. Everything we do is about revolution&#33;

Well, it remains that none of the things you describe are actually economism in its historical sense. The economists in Russia (who correspond to the German revisionists, the British Fabians or the French Possiblists in those nations&#39; social-democratic movement) argued for economic struggle as an alternative to building the revolutionary party. They were consequently only in favor of the revolutionaries being politically active as far as it combatted Tsarism. So as we can see, this is something quite different from the vast majority of "Trotskyist" organizations, which seek to build the revolutionary party at the same time as we involve ourselves in economic struggle.

You may not be intentionally doing so, but I think you are counterposing the day-to-day struggle with the revolution, while they&#39;re really at two points on the same continuum. Day-to-day struggle, whether that&#39;s solidarity with the Jena 6, fighting the persecution of undocumented workers, or what have you, serves several revolutionary purposes:

1) Building "street cred" among the workers, convincing them that we, the revolutionaries, have the answers they&#39;re looking for.
2) Making revolutionary politics concrete to the workers.
3) Teaching the revolutionaries, through trial-and-error mostly, the correct revolutionary practice among the workers.

So everything that we Trotskyists do is about revolution as well. It&#39;s just that we&#39;re more realistic and therefore more likely to succeed. :P


I would like to speak briefly from experience here. I used to be a Trotskyist and was aligned and somewhat active with the International Marxist Tendency (IMT), which is the Worker&#39;s International League (WIL) here in the U.S. The only political work I did the entire time I was a member of the group was sell the bi-monthly magazine to people in my high school and on a street in Providence to the petty bourgeoisie. I am not saying that the IMT does not engage in other tactics, I am just trying to point out that I never actually did work or saw anybody do work with the proletariat; and that they accepted me as a member even though, in retrospect, I was very undeveloped politically at the time (just read through my old posts and you will get a sense of this).

I know that the IMT has a footing in several unions in the U.S. (the teamsters, I recall), but as I have said previously - being in the unions doesn&#39;t even mean you are connected to the proletariat.

Well, no offense, but I don&#39;t really think that you can characterize your experience within the IMT (especially considering the state of their organization both in the US and worldwide), as representative of the work done by the whole "Trotskyist" movement. All Trotskyists are not Grantites as well.


Now as for socialism in one country, there are some important issues that need to be cleared up.

First, the emphasis on the world revolution occurring so that the revolution in Russia could survive was not just Trotsky&#39;s take on things, it represented the clear and precise line of the entire Bolshevik party leadership, as well as that of the Comintern of course, until around 1924. This would be true whether you asked Trotsky, Lenin, Zinoviev, Kamenev, or even Stalin. This is what he said in Foundations of Leninism:


The principal task of socialism – the organisation of socialist production – has still to be fulfilled. Can this task be fulfilled, can the final victory of socialism be achieved, in one country, without the joint efforts of the proletarians in several advanced countries? No it cannot ... for the organisation of socialist production, the efforts of one country, particularly of a peasant country like Russia, are insufficient; for that the efforts of the proletarians of several advanced countries are required.

It was also the line of the Comintern, as adopted at its Fourth Congress (in 1922) was “The proletarian revolution can never triumph completely within a single country; rather must it triumph internationally, as world revolution.” It&#39;s important that we note at this point what caused the Comintern, and many prominent Bolshevik leaders (save Lenin and Trotsky, of course) to reverse their position during/after 1924. The two most important factors, of course, are 1) the defeat if the 1923 revolution in Germany, which took revolution off the agenda for a little while in that country at least, and 2) the bureaucracy consolidating its position within Russia. Both of these factors contributed to an increasingly conservative atmosphere, and it was this that made the Bolshevik leaders switch positions.


To finish my response to this question, I&#39;ll contribute a bit more to the Lenin quote war:


Socialism is no longer a matter of the distant future or an abstract picture..difficult as this task may be...and numerous as the difficulties may be that it entails, we shall - not in a day but in a few years - all of us together fulfill it whatever the cost, so that NEP Russia will become Socialist Russia.


With most of the population organized in co-operatives, socialism...will achieve its aims automatically.

And finally, Lenin defines socialism in his pamphlet "On Cooperation"(in a way that Trotsky was very careful to not polemicize against until after Lenin died and even still did so in the guise of arguing against &#39;Stalinism&#39; rather than Leninism).


Given social ownership of the means of production, given the class victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, the system of civilised co-operators is the system of socialism.

Stalin understood that socialism could not achieve its "final victory" in only one country alone, but that one country could be socialist.

Well, I would question how complete the first two quotes are considering the amount of ellipses. Neither are they sourced so that we can see their context. But I&#39;ll work with what I have, I guess. In the first quote, it is important to note that he is talking about establishing the preconditions for socialism. The same goes for the second, furthermore, he isn&#39;t really dealing with the conflict of socialism in one country versus the world revolution. And if you read the whole pamphlet "On Cooperation", he is clearly talking about the same thing. There&#39;s nothing in there about socialism in one country, neither is there any clear statement he made in all his writings that socialism could in fact be built in one country, which makes sense from the man who said this:


At all events, under all conceivable circumstances, if the German revolution does not come, we are doomed. Nevertheless, this does not in the least shake our conviction that we must be able to bear the most difficult position without blustering.
- Collected Works Vol. 27, p. 98 (emphasis mine)


What particularly was being "watered down" in Mao&#39;s programme? The alliance with the national bourgeoisie was a "necessary error" to combat japanese imperialism, just like the NEP was a necessary error (in Lenin&#39;s words) to develop socialism in Russia.

Which funnily enough was actually aimed at buying time for the revolution to occur in Western Europe. There was no need for a retreat if Russia had the material resources to construct socialism; they needed resources from more developed countries.


We have no love for the bourgeoisie, but as Leninists we are of the conviction that you cannot have socialism without breaking entirely with imperialism, which is something that both the proletariat and the sections of the national bourgeoisie have interest in doing.

Although, I believe your original assertion was that the national bourgeoisie (and the aristocracy of labor) does not exist. This leads me to conclude that you think imperialism does not exist, since both strata logically (and empirically) exist due to the dominance of finance capital in political economy.

Can you make an actual argument here for the existence of either the national bourgeoisie or the aristocracy of labor? If so, I&#39;ll address it after you respond.

[Rawthentic]

Comrade HLIP, the struggle to free the Jena 6 is not a day-to-day struggle. It truly was (and is) a major political battle in society that reflects the nature of this system, namely white supremacy.

There are certain political battles that need communist leadership so they can be taken down the correct road and to highlight the injustices of this system. Better wages are not one of those political battles. They include but definitely are not limited to: Free the Jena 6&#33;, Oct.22 Stop Police Brutality&#33;, Defense of Public Housing in New Orleans, Defend Science, anti-war, etc.

Just because you are involved in the labor movement telling the workers that they need better wages, does not mean at all that you have any connection to the proletariat.

[RNK]

I of course acknowledge the proletarian-oriented background of the Chinese Communists, but this background is not particularly helpful in a situation where the party has no continuing participation in the life of an organized working class. As their orientation switched to the peasants and countryside, their policies and theory became quite distorted, as will inevitably happen to a communist organization, however revolutionary that stops focusing on the proletariat. Accordingly, here is a mountain of quotes I have been saving for a while until the time was right. These all demonstrate how Mao and the CCP&#39;s theory and practice became distorted after the focus on the countryside:

Very nice, a seemingly damning case of picking and choosing certain shady-looking quotes and out-of-hand contexts. You&#39;re sly, if anything, I&#39;ll give you that.


Only after wiping out comparatively large enemy units and occupying the cities can we arouse the masses on a large scale and build up a unified political power over a number of adjoining counties. Only thus can we arouse the attention of the people far and wide.

This quote is given in the attempted context that Mao was essentially saying, "let&#39;s ignore the urban proletariat; we&#39;ll give them some bread crumbs after the revolution". On the other hand, if you actually take into consideration what was going on in China in 1930 -- namely, the KMT had actually just recently shattered the working class and fortified the cities and driven the communists into the countryside -- you will realize that the statement is one of necessity. The enemy, (ie, the KMT), who is currently occupying the cities and forcing totalitarianism on the urban proletariat, must be destroyed before the urban proletariat can be relieved. That is, infact, the whole point of developing the worker-peasant alliance; the urban proletariat, as a revolutionary force, was unavilable, to put it simply.


The workers have been advised not to put up demands which may be in excess of what can be granted by the enterprise in question. In the non- Soviet districts, it is our intention not to accentuate the anti-capitalist struggle.

So, what you&#39;ve done here is quote a quote that was reference from a quote in a book that doesn&#39;t exist ("China. The March.") Anything tangible in there?


[The workers should] co-operate with the capitalists, so that maximum production can be attained.

A quote from a western correspondant listening to the Peking radio broadcast. In either case, how, exactly, does this go against Marxist traditional transitional socialism? Not even Marx argued that everything need happen overnight. Corporations can not simply be bulldozed to the ground the next day; it would lead to economic ruin. It is a gradual process, hence "transition"; one of those transitional steps is, infact, the gradual taxation of corporations and enterprises, the gradual seizure of their property and finances, and the eventual abolition of their monopolies.


Do not be in a hurry to organize the people of the city to struggle for democratic reforms and improvements in livelihood. These matters can be properly handled in the light of local conditions only when the municipal administration is in good working order, public feeling has become calm, surveys have been made.

This is, actually, quite a very good example of how people take quotes out of context and try to use them to smear a person.

This quote was taken from a telegram sent to the party cadre headquarters of forces who had just liberated a city. The context of the telegram was to urge local party cadres not to enforce their own laws upon the population, but instead maintain societal relations until the democratic municipality can be formed and major decisions about the local economy made democratically by municipal councils.

But yeah, very good effort. I&#39;m sure you almost had some people.


Do not be in a hurry to organize the people of the city to struggle for democratic reforms and improvements in livelihood. These matters can be properly handled in the light of local conditions only when the municipal administration is in good working order, public feeling has become calm, surveys have been made.

The quote is the same as above: "do not try to make sweeping, rampant changes without proper analysis of the material conditions of the area. Instead, wait until democratic assemblies can be organized and the people able to govern themselves."

Funny that such an anti-Stalinist like yourself is preaching against a decision to prevent the Party from enforcing its own laws and instead urging for action to be taken only by democratic councils.


Next, there is the implementation of a ten-hour day and progressive piece-rate wage systems – using wages to increase production and raise labour consciousness ... the egalitarian supply wage system obliterates the distinctions between skilled and unskilled labour and between industriousness and indolence – thereby lowering worker activism; we must replace the supply system with a progressive piece-rate system to stimulate worker activism and increase the quantity and quality of output.

Another elaborate quote of a quote of a reference of a quote. It seems that you, like Nigel, are dependant on people being unable to question your sources by making those sources so damned hard to find.

In any respect, I can not find any mention of this in any of Mao&#39;s writings, speeches, or letters, not from 1942 and not from any other time. It bears striking - but exhaggerated - resemblance to a 1942 letter entitled "Economic and Financial Problems in the Anti-Japanese War", in which Mao urges that the revolutionary movement must ask more from the population in order to win, but stresses that this can not be forced upon the peasants and workers, and that they must understand the dire necessity of it.

Also:


After the victory, exploitation was to continue at an increased pace:

...


- Mao, 1942, quoted in Wage patterns and policy in Modern China, 1919-1972 by Christopher Howe, p 59

After the victory, in 1942.. despite the fact that the Japanese were not defeated until 1945, and the victory over the KMT not until 1949...


Owing to the alliance with the rich peasants, the interests of the agricultural labourers were sacrificed ... We feared the counter-revolutionary turn of the rich peasants and consequently asked the agricultural labourers to lower their demands

First, this is a CC directive from 1929; at that time Mao was only a representative and commanded only an Army during the struggle. If you&#39;re going to try and smear Mao, atleast use content that actually has something to do with him...


Because the number of rich peasants was very small, we decided in principle to leave them alone and to make concessions to them. But the ‘leftists’ did not agree. They advocated ‘giving the rich peasants bad land, and giving the landlords no land’. As a result, the landlords had nothing to eat and some of them fled to the mountains and formed guerilla bands.

This quote seems to have come from the netherworld as well, as it does not exist on Page 441 of Selected Works Vol. 2, nor does it seem to appear in any paper published in 1947.

Not only that, but there&#39;s a striking resemblence between this (falsified) quote and something Mao did actually say in a paper written in 1947 called "The Present Situation and our Tasks":


Originally posted by Mao+--> (Mao)Landlords or rich peasants must not be allotted more land and property than the peasant masses. But there should be no repetition of the wrong ultra-Left policy, which was carried out in 1931-34, of "allotting no land to the landlords and poor land to the rich peasants".[/b]

This seems to directly contradict the quote given in Nigel Harris&#39; book (which all of your quotes have come from). More quotes, from the very same paragraph, contradict it even more:


Originally posted by [email protected]
After the Japanese surrender, the peasants urgently demanded land, and we made a timely decision to change our land policy from reducing rent and interest to confiscating the land of the landlord class for distribution among the peasants.

Seems "The Mandate Of Heaven" is really lacking when it comes to reputable sources (most of its sources, anyway, reference sources from other books).


Do not raise the slogan, ‘Open the granaries to relieve the poor’. Do not foster among them the psychology of depending on the government for relief.

This quote actually comes from the aforementioned letter to the party cadres who had recently liberated a city (Loyang). The entire quote, also, goes:


Mao
In the big cities, food and fuel are now the central problems; they must be handled in a planned way. Once a city comes under our administration, the problem of the livelihood of the city poor must be solved step by step and in a planned way. Do not raise the slogan, "Open the granaries to relieve the poor". Do not foster among them the psychology of depending on the government for relief.

While the context you provided seemed to paint a picture of Mao refusing to feed the poor and starving, in reality it was actually a case of there needing to be some form of planning and organization to distribute food. Simply dumping food in the middle of a central park and letting the people go at it like animals would not be a very pleasant thing to do.


Oh dear. I think I&#39;ll have to send you some sturdier material to construct your straw-men with for Xmas.

Considering that the majority of the quotes you gave were mis-sourced or didn&#39;t even exist, I&#39;d hardly say you&#39;re the one to talk to me about "sturdy materiel". Frankly, this little expedition on my part has really opened up the fact that Nigel Harris&#39; book is quite rampant with inaccuracy, non-existent sources, mis-quotations and attempts to misrepresent meanings and produce quotes out of context -- in the end, it&#39;s quite obviously nothing more than a malicious, and quite shallow and baseless, attack. Now, I&#39;m unaware if you even knew this; something tells me that you won&#39;t really care, in which case, there&#39;s simply no point in arguing with you, as your predetermined beliefs seem to have a knack for clouding your rationality. Thankfully there are far more open-minded and logical minds out there than you; hopefully I&#39;ve prevented even just a single person from falling into the trap Nigel has laid.

[Random Precision]

RNK:

You have my apologies, I should have done my homework better. You may consider that my self-criticism, I suppose.

[RNK]

I apologize too, for the rather assholish attitude I took in the post. I&#39;m glad that atleast some anti-Maoists are able to recognize when a claim is unsubstantiated.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 10:21 pm
Considering that the majority of the quotes you gave were mis-sourced or didn&#39;t even exist, I&#39;d hardly say you&#39;re the one to talk to me about "sturdy materiel". Frankly, this little expedition on my part has really opened up the fact that Nigel Harris&#39; book is quite rampant with inaccuracy, non-existent sources, mis-quotations and attempts to misrepresent meanings and produce quotes out of context -- in the end, it&#39;s quite obviously nothing more than a malicious, and quite shallow and baseless, attack. Now, I&#39;m unaware if you even knew this; something tells me that you won&#39;t really care, in which case, there&#39;s simply no point in arguing with you, as your predetermined beliefs seem to have a knack for clouding your rationality. Thankfully there are far more open-minded and logical minds out there than you; hopefully I&#39;ve prevented even just a single person from falling into the trap Nigel has laid.
Can you back that up? Labor Shall Rule&#39;s argument is certainly not how you are trying to characterize it (which is a pattern I see many Maoists do: any criticism is branded as pure malice).

[Random Precision]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 27, 2007 05:20 pm
Comrade HLIP, the struggle to free the Jena 6 is not a day-to-day struggle. It truly was (and is) a major political battle in society that reflects the nature of this system, namely white supremacy.

There are certain political battles that need communist leadership so they can be taken down the correct road and to highlight the injustices of this system. Better wages are not one of those political battles. They include but definitely are not limited to: Free the Jena 6&#33;, Oct.22 Stop Police Brutality&#33;, Defense of Public Housing in New Orleans, Defend Science, anti-war, etc.

Just because you are involved in the labor movement telling the workers that they need better wages, does not mean at all that you have any connection to the proletariat.
But the battle to extract better wages and benefits, etc. from the capitalists is a political struggle as well, since it highlights, as you say, the injustices of the system. And it is clearly one that also requires communist participation and leadership, for the benefit of both the proletariat and the communists, as I discussed in my reply to SovietPants.

"The struggle of class against class is a political struggle"- I hope we all know who said that.

[bezdomni]

I don&#39;t have the time right now to respond to your entire post, comrade...but this one thing was really standing out to me.

In these quotes from Lenin and the comintern (who were upholding the correct line), you will notice that they are speaking of the "final victory" of socialism, which is very different from a country which has a socialist economy. Stalin is very careful to clarify this also in the quote from Foundations of Leninism that you provided (which I acknowledge to be full of theoretical blunders, but this is something that I think Stalin gets right).

&#39;Stalinists&#39; don&#39;t think you can make the transition to classless society in one country alone, but we do uphold the Marxist-Leninist line that there can be and have been socialist countries. I&#39;ll refer you back to one of the quotes I provided by Lenin where he says (I&#39;m paraphrasing) "someday NEP Russia will be socialist Russia."

In all of those quotes I provided, Lenin was talking precisely about constructing socialism in one country...but everybody (from Marx to Trotsky to Mao) knew that "final socialism" could not exist in one country alone.

This raises an interesting question that I think has gone completely unresolved in the communist movement (and will probably continue in such a way until it becomes very relevant, probably yielding a situation similar to the left opposition in the CPSU) - in order for socialism&#39;s "final victory" to be achieved, does the whole world have to be socialist, or just the vast majority of it?



“The proletarian revolution can never triumph completely within a single country; rather must it triumph internationally, as world revolution.”

[Rawthentic]

"The struggle of class against class is a political struggle"- I hope we all know who said that.

I&#39;m afraid that is in correct comrade (not this quote, mind you). The struggle for better wages is by its nature a reformist and economic struggle. Keep in mind that I am not saying that they are struggles that should be ignored.

That quote you provided proves me right. It is the struggle of a class and its ideology against the opposing class and its ideology. That does not mean groupings of workers against their employers. By the workings of this system that cannot raise communist consciousness in the proletariat, something Lenin emphasized in What is to be Done?

This is why struggles like the Jena 6 need communist leadership, because they fundamentally represent the historic interests of a class as a whole, and these struggles embody the struggle to end centuries long class oppression (slavery and the oppression of Black people).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 09:32 am
This raises an interesting question that I think has gone completely unresolved in the communist movement (and will probably continue in such a way until it becomes very relevant, probably yielding a situation similar to the left opposition in the CPSU) - in order for socialism&#39;s "final victory" to be achieved, does the whole world have to be socialist, or just the vast majority of it?



“The proletarian revolution can never triumph completely within a single country; rather must it triumph internationally, as world revolution.”
I think there was a thread on this already. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=71643) :huh:

The example cited in that thread was the exclusion of say, New Zealand and a bunch of small Pacific Ocean islands from the socialist system. The OP said that we&#39;ve got to get past this binary logic and think about a spectrum.

I even mentioned the idea that an enlarged COMECON bloc that included China, Albania, and Yugoslavia would still not have been ready for socialism.

[RNK]

Originally posted by manic expression+December 28, 2007 10:58 am--> (manic expression @ December 28, 2007 10:58 am)
[email protected] 27, 2007 10:21 pm
Considering that the majority of the quotes you gave were mis-sourced or didn&#39;t even exist, I&#39;d hardly say you&#39;re the one to talk to me about "sturdy materiel". Frankly, this little expedition on my part has really opened up the fact that Nigel Harris&#39; book is quite rampant with inaccuracy, non-existent sources, mis-quotations and attempts to misrepresent meanings and produce quotes out of context -- in the end, it&#39;s quite obviously nothing more than a malicious, and quite shallow and baseless, attack. Now, I&#39;m unaware if you even knew this; something tells me that you won&#39;t really care, in which case, there&#39;s simply no point in arguing with you, as your predetermined beliefs seem to have a knack for clouding your rationality. Thankfully there are far more open-minded and logical minds out there than you; hopefully I&#39;ve prevented even just a single person from falling into the trap Nigel has laid.
Can you back that up? Labor Shall Rule&#39;s argument is certainly not how you are trying to characterize it (which is a pattern I see many Maoists do: any criticism is branded as pure malice). [/b]
It&#39;s not a simple task to "back up" the lack of existence of something. Sufficed to say, every quote given was from Mandate of Heaven and I started there. Most of the quotes were taken from Mao&#39;s Selected Works, which is readily available online; it was a simple task to look up the page number given, which in most cases led to a dead end - so I combed through similar writings from the same time period and of the same subject to see if I could find the source of the quote and in most cases either found it or found what it appeared to be based off (and exhaggerated) from. In other cases, actual quotes were given, and it was simply a matter of providing what was left out in order to complete the true context of what was written; for instance, in Mandate the author attempts, in one case, to show Mao apparently giving orders to Party cadres to keep starving masses away from food. Showing the entire passage and the entire message showed he was actually telling the Party cadres to not simply open the floodgates and allow a mass riot to occur at the granaries but instead they should ensure an equitable solution so that everyone can get food rather than people try to hoarde it from others. In another case the book attempts to show Mao saying that rich peasants should be placated and treated submissively and allowed to keep their large plots of land, via a quote that did not exist; I found in a very similar letter (same subject; peasants and land) from the exact same time period where Mao says quite the opposite, that land must be taken from rich peasants and redistributed evenly among the masses.

As I said in the original post, I wasn&#39;t sure if LSR was being malicious or not; the fact of the matter is, given the inaccuracies and obvious fudging (and in some cases complete fabrication) of fact that the book itself is quite malicious. In either case, I apologized for my attitude and I hope LSR accepts it (but its his perogative whether he does or not).

And just a bit about "socialism in one country"... who the hell came up with the idiotic presumption that such a term equates to a fundamental abandonment of global revolution and universal class struggle? Nobody, no Stalinist or Maoist or anyone else that I&#39;m aware of and who calls himself a communist, believes that socialism can only occur in a single country, and that that&#39;s a wrap. On the contrary, I myself believe that a sweeping, instantaneous world revolution striking every country, every city, every street, is simply impractical and impossible. As revolutionaries we must always be conscious about the world around us, about the material conditions that we live in, and if an oppurtunity presents itself to create a revolution in one state or one province or one country then it should without a doubt be acted upon. If we&#39;re all twiddling our thumbs waiting for the next guy to start his revolution before we start ours, well, we aren&#39;t going to get far.

And as for "universal socialism or majority-of-the-world socialism", if a socialist revolution gains enough strength that the majority of the world are liberated from capital, I doubt there would be any possible way, given the dependance on the global market that all countries have to deal with, that any small number of "capitalist bastions" could survive. It&#39;s all or nothing, really. Until it&#39;s all gone, we&#39;re not entirely free, so..

[Sky]

Maoism is a petit bourgeois trend in the international Communist movement. It is a conglomeration of subjectivist, voluntarist, and vulgar-materialist ideas, antithetical to Marxist philosophy, political economy, scientific communism, and the proletarian strategy and tactics of the communist movement. Maoism is an attempt to justify the adventuristic policy of “barracks communism”.

In the realm of philosophy, Maoism proclaims its adherence to dialectical and historical materialism but in fact revises all its principles from the standpoint of subjective, vulgar materialism, and a primitive interpretation of dialectics. While recognizing the universality of contradiction, Maoism converts one aspect, the struggle of opposites, into an absolute, and ignores or minimizes the role of the unity of opposites. At the same time, Maoism greatly exaggerates the extent to which antagonistic contradictions occur, regarding them as universal, and seeing non-antagonistic contradictions merely as particular manifestations of antagonistic ones. The law of unity and the struggle of opposites is reduced to the mechanical juxtaposition of the two and mechanical alternation between the two. In epistemology, Maoism is characterized by empiricism, on which it bases its narrowly utilitarian approach to the understanding of practice as simply the direct physical participation of the individual in production or politics. Maoism oversimplifies the problem of knowledge, minimizing the role of theoretical thought and its potential for providing knowledge, and simultaneously reduces the range of social practice.

Maoism is characterized by an extreme eclecticism and by subjective in theory and voluntarism in politics. Maoism has been greatly influenced by anarchism and by revisionist currents in the communist movement, especially Trotskyism. From the anarchists Mao borrowed such principles as the absolutization of violence “to rebel is justified” and reliance on non-proletarian, déclassé elements and politically immature layers of young people to “organize” revolutions without regard to whether there is a revolutionary situation. From Trotskyism, Maoism has borrowed the concept of “permanent revolution”, thus building upon the operating premise that the victory of socialism is impossible without the total annihilation of imperialism. Maoism contends that under socialism, even at its mature stage, there is a continual battle between socialist and capitalist roads of development, with a constant danger of capitalist restortation; to prevent that danger, constant “revolutions” are necessary. The so-called “cultural revolution” carried out under Mao’s leadership in the late 1960s was proclaimed as a model of such a revolution.

Maoism denies the objective laws of socialist and communist construction and the doctrine of the leading role of the Marxist-Leninist party as the vanguard of the working class; it replaces socialist democracy with the rule of a military-burreaucratic clique, imposes the cult of personality, and depreciates the role of the people. Maosim fundamentally denies the principles of socialist humanism. Instead of a proletarian class line in politics, Maoism resorts to Bonapartist maneuvering between different classes and social strata.