Mao or Stalin??

[comandante_p-nut15]

just a quick little thread to see what my comrades here at revleft think about the differences between pro-chinese communism and pro-soviet communism.

what are some major and minor differences? pros and cons? the works.

i'd appreciate all the help i can get. thanks!:D

[bezdomni]

Maoists uphold, but criticize Stalin. The sino-soviet split didn't happen until after the death of Stalin and the rise of Khruschevite revisionism in the CPSU.

http://www.singlespark.org/?id=StalinMaoEval has a good summary.

[kromando33]

Maoism has many anti-Marxist areas, the biggest one being blaming every reactionary failure of the Maoist state on 'contradiction'. Also in reality Mao never tried to work on the acheivements of Stalin and add upon his contributions to Marxist science, instead opportunistically Mao tried to recreate Marxism in his own image, Stalin never had any 'Stalinism' or whatever, he wasn't so arrogant, he was simply working on Marxism-Leninism, and Hoxha essentially continued Stalin's additions, while Mao ignored Stalin for the most part.

[bezdomni]

lol, that is simply not true. Mao analyzed Stalin exhaustively. After all, Mao and Stalin were the leaders of the socialist bloc (1949-1956). They *couldn't* ignore each other.

[SamiBTX]

I think Stalin was rightfully critisized by some of his fellow party mmbers, he didn't uphold any *real* socialist values like Lenin or Trotsky.
But he did help defeat the Nazis & you can't argue that.

I've never payed that much attention to Mao because I was pretty sure I wouldn't
be on the same page with him on alot of things.:o

[Dros]

Mao never tried to work on the acheivements of Stalin and add upon his contributions to Marxist science. Mao ignored Stalin for the most part.

Are you kidding? Mao upheld Stalin for the most part yet wrote exhaustive (and critical) analysis of his line and policy. That is simply untrue.

[kromando33]

Yes but Dros Mao was far more interesting in upholding himself as the true carry-on from Leninism than acknowledging Stalin fully.

[comandante_p-nut15]

"Mao or Stalin"? It isn't really a question of 'or'.

Contemporary Maoists, at least for the most part, uphold Stalin as well.

"Mao or Hoxha" might be a better question.


yea i wasnt trying to completely separate the two because mao did uphold stalin and there are a few simlarities between the pro-chinese and the pro-soviets. i was just throwing out an intriguing title(even if it wasnt that intriguing). thanks for the suggestion tho.

[Ol' Dirty]

It's arbitrary anyway. Both of their policies killed millions of people, so either their thory or praxis are fucked up. Or both.

[kromando33]

It's arbitrary anyway. Both of their policies killed millions of people, so either their thory or praxis are fucked up. Or both.
Nice conforming to the bourgeois and Nazi lies of 'communist extermination'.

[Enragé]

there are differences, sure, but the bottom line is both were bureaucratic nightmares, both sucked. The alternative for capitalism isnt bureaucratic capitalism, and you can see all so-called socialist states which were in fact bureaucratic capitalist degenerate into "normal" capitalist (because well, when it comes to surplus extraction, its simply better at it).

The sino-soviet split was just a conflict between two ruling classes, both claiming monopoly on "the revolution" (thereby destroying, negating it).

[Dros]

Yes but Dros Mao was far more interesting in upholding himself as the true carry-on from Leninism than acknowledging Stalin fully.

I obviously disagree. A key element of Maoism is the idea that we have to constantly reasses our method and learn from our failures. Stalin ultimately failed in protecting the Bolshevik revolution. Mao analyzed that failure and produced a new ideology to build upon and address that failure.


It's arbitrary anyway. Both of their policies killed millions of people, so either their thory or praxis are fucked up. Or both.

Did you get that from Hitler or the National Bourgeoisie? Either way I'm not surprised...


there are differences, sure, but the bottom line is both were bureaucratic nightmares, both sucked. The alternative for capitalism isnt bureaucratic capitalism, and you can see all so-called socialist states which were in fact bureaucratic capitalist degenerate into "normal" capitalist (because well, when it comes to surplus extraction, its simply better at it)

I highly suggest that you read up on the Chinese revolution. I know I'm not going to convince you about Stalin but at least you can make an effort to understand what actually occured...

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Nice conforming to the bourgeois and Nazi lies of 'communist extermination'.

:rolleyes:

Daisies went along with the deaths, I'm sure.

Care to provide any credible evidence to counter the "bourgeois" propaganda?

[kromando33]

No Gene, what I mean to say is that I am sure both Stalin and Mao had many thousands of bourgeois and other class enemies killed, but what I mean is that I don't care.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

That is why I'm asking for some credible evidence. I too would not criticize Stalin for eliminating members of bourgeois harmful towards the proles, but I can't just base my decisions off of claims.

I'm not even asking for mainstream sources, since obviously that would mean an American bias. Just something that has evidence.