Why did Mao's China back fascists like Nixon and Pot?

[Cheung Mo]

Even the staunchest anti-revisionist should have the common sense to realise that the Soviet Union was much closer to the aspirations of Marx, Engels, and Lenin than anything Pol Pot and his cronies were able to shit out. No amount of animosity between Beijing and Moscow can justify allying with a mass-murdering tyrant who got his rocks off by slaughtering Cambodians of Vietnamese heritage. If anything, you think Mao would want vengeance for Washington's involvement in Suharto's cleansing of Indonesia's Chinese minority. And incidentally, what planet are you living on if you consider Pol Pot a good guy and Ho Chi Minh a bad guy?

[Hiero]

Maoist China supported Pol Pot in his first stages, the anti-colonialist stage and I think the Soviet Union should have done the same. By the end of Mao's leadership China had alot more to worry about internally then what was starting to unfold in Cambodia.

China never denounced Ho Chi Minh, China supported Vietnam's war of liberation.

And what the hell does Suharto have to do with this? I don't think you thought this one through.

[Great Helmsman]

1. China supported all anti-imperialist movements at that time, including the CPK.

2. According to the Three Worlds Theory, communists should oppose both imperialist superpowers: the US and USSR. And there wasn't anything wrong with that. After all, why should communists and national liberation movements fight to free themselves of imperialist rule, only to run into the waiting arms of another imperialist superpower? It was from Zhou Enlai's revisionist interpretation of the Three Worlds Theory where problems arose. As America retreated, bloodied in Vietnam, the revisionists believed that the USSR now posed a bigger threat and they should make amends with the US. But Mao's Three Worlds Theory never justified allying and playing the world's imperialists off each other, in fact it rejected picking sides between imperialists. The contradiction lay not between the USSR and the USA, but in global class struggle.

[RNK]

Damnitall, I was all froth-mouthed and everything, only to find you guys have beaten me to the punch...

[Xiao Banfa]

The USSR did way more to aid the progressive cause than the PRC did.

China's support of South-African allied UNITA and refusing aylum to chilean leftists in the chinese embassy showed them up for the collaborating frauds they were.

[Dros]

The USSR did way more to aid the progressive cause than the PRC did.

China's support of South-African allied UNITA and refusing aylum to chilean leftists in the chinese embassy showed them up for the collaborating frauds they were.

The Soviet Union was an imperialist state. They aided their bourgeois allies so as to reap economic advantage and more effectively exploit the third world proletariat. The Chinese supported numerous anti-imperialist governments and movements. The USSR actively engaged in imperialism. Big difference.

[manic expression]

The Soviet Union was an imperialist state. They aided their bourgeois allies so as to reap economic advantage and more effectively exploit the third world proletariat. The Chinese supported numerous anti-imperialist governments and movements. The USSR actively engaged in imperialism. Big difference.

You realize that you didn't really say anything substantive, right? Repeating falsehoods is not an actual argument. Drop the ultra-leftist garbage and address the facts.

[Comrade Phil]

Maoist China supported Pol Pot in his first stages, the anti-colonialist stage and I think the Soviet Union should have done the same. By the end of Mao's leadership China had alot more to worry about internally then what was starting to unfold in Cambodia.

The PRC actively supported the Khmer Rouge right until the bitter end. The Sino–Vietnamese War was the Chinese response to Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia.

[Demogorgon]

1. China supported all anti-imperialist movements at that time, including the CPK.

I suppose apartheid South Africa was an anti-imperialist movement?

China's foreign policy was (post Stalin) largely based around undermining whatever the Soviet Union was up to. That is the long and short of it. It was plain realpolitik.

[Sky]

The Chinese supported the Khmer Rouge because there was hostility towards Vietnam, which was a Soviet ally. China even went to war with Vietnam because the latter had invaded and occupied Kampuchea in 1979. China's cozying up to the United States was due to the tense relations with Russia.

[Xiao Banfa]

I've never got an answer from maoists on this one, I don't know what posessed me to think otherwise.

The USSR generally aided progressive movements the PRC generally aided reactionaries. Prove me otherwise. With facts and examples.



The Soviet Union was an imperialist state. They aided their bourgeois allies so as to reap economic advantage and more effectively exploit the third world proletariat.


The ingredients were not there for the USSR to be considered an imperialist state.

The USSR gave resources and went out on a limb to help their allies.

I suppose Salvador Allende tripling workers salaries was an example of 'more effective' exploitation?

And of course China's friends the racist South Africans were so kind to those black miners.

[Great Helmsman]

Maoist China supported all the anti-imperialist groups in Angola, including UNITA, against the principal imperialist power in the conflict at that time - Portugal. Savimbi did declare himself to be a Maoist early on, but would later pick the side of the US and SA after Portugal withdrew. I don't really see a problem with this; it wasn't as if South Africa and China were allies working to thwart revolutions.

Now Chile is a different matter and that was clearly a revisionist mistake. I'm not going to defend Mao on that one simply because he was still alive while revisionists were taking over the party. Incidentally it was also around this time that China abandoned Maoism and started the capitalist restoration. So yes this was a mistake of Maoist China, but that doesn't mean modern Maoists should abandon Mao by "waving the red flag to oppose it".

The USSR proved it was no friend to the oppressed third world. They made a great deal of money off of the high interest loans they offered to poor countries. They kept their "allies" in a state of perpetual underdevelopment by encouraging specialization and production for export. They insisted infrastructure development needed high-paid Soviet advisers who got their own servants and traveled in cars separate from the "natives". And their most egregious offense was to deny global class struggle by insisting on peaceful co-existence with the West.

[Prairie Fire]

Great Helmsman

According to the Three Worlds Theory, communists should oppose both imperialist superpowers: the US and USSR. And there wasn't anything wrong with that. After all, why should communists and national liberation movements fight to free themselves of imperialist rule, only to run into the waiting arms of another imperialist superpower? It was from Zhou Enlai's revisionist interpretation of the Three Worlds Theory where problems arose. As America retreated, bloodied in Vietnam, the revisionists believed that the USSR now posed a bigger threat and they should make amends with the US. But Mao's Three Worlds Theory never justified allying and playing the world's imperialists off each other, in fact it rejected picking sides between imperialists. The contradiction lay not between the USSR and the USA, but in global class struggle.

The three worlds theory...

I can't keep track of what the truth is with that revisionistic bile of a "theory". Most Maoists claim that it originated with Mao, many claim that the revisionist PRC leadership (post-Mao) twisted it for their own purposes, and the RIM claims that Mao didn't create the theory of three worlds at all, and it is falsley and slanderously attributed to him. Enver Hoxha had this to say:



It is of no consequence to know who first invented the term the "third world" , who was the first to divide the world into three parts, bu tit is certain that Lenin did not make such a division, while the communist party of China claims paternity to it, asserting that Mao Tse Tung invented the "theory of three worlds". If he is the author who first formulated this so-called theory, this is further evidence that Mao Tse Tung is not a Marxist.
But even if he only adopted this theory from others, this, too, is proof enough that he is not a Marxist.


Anyways, rejecting both superpowers was not an exclusive feature of the three worlds theory. Also, when put into practice, the three worlds theory did not reject both superpowers. China promoted the idea that US imperialism was tamed and Soviet social-imperialism was the greater threat. This is on eof the major points of contention that lead to the Sino-Albanian split.

In practice, the theory of three worlds yielded it's logical fruit: Giving guns to every rebel movement that was taking a stab at the super powers, regardless of their politics. This also lead Mao to make mistakes, like the notion that third world leaders (like Mobutu sese seko) could be "radicalized" (even though he was virulant anti-communist, who had even killed Maoists in Zaire!).

That's the topic of this thread, the main question I think:
Why was the PRC/CPC so...indiscriminate with their funneling of aid and weaponry?

I mean, Pol pot's Kampuchea, Pinochet in Chile, Mobutu in Zaire, the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, UNITA, Aparthied South Africa... the list goes on.

Apparently, the only genuine Marxist-Leninist party ever supported by the PRC was the PPSH :D.



The USSR proved it was no friend to the oppressed third world. They made a great deal of money off of the high interest loans they offered to poor countries. They kept their "allies" in a state of perpetual underdevelopment by encouraging specialization and production for export. They insisted infrastructure development needed high-paid Soviet advisers who got their own servants and traveled in cars separate from the "natives". And their most egregious offense was to deny global class struggle by insisting on peaceful co-existence with the West.


Very true, but this does not justify Chinas Quadafi-like backing of every rebel group that was stirring shit up in former colonies.


drosera99:


The Chinese supported numerous anti-imperialist governments and movements.
Great Helmsman:

1. China supported all anti-imperialist movements at that time, including the CPK.

And that is a major problem, once again, the fruit of the "theory of three worlds". The term "anti-imperialist" is a quite vague handle, and can be applied liberally. The Mujihideen were anti-imperialist, for sure.

Every other socialist state, from the early USSR onwards scrutinized the countries/groups that they sent arms and aid to; they were willing to support anti-imperialist movements that could blossom into new-democratic/ socialist movements. Of all of the socialist countries, China had the lowest standards of their clients in terms of ideology and goals.
Because of this, genuine Marxist-Leninist (even Maoist) groups were neglected in favour of shady third world entities that held more sway, like
tin-pot generals and Islamist jihadists.


So yes this was a mistake of Maoist China, but that doesn't mean modern Maoists should abandon Mao by "waving the red flag to oppose it".


It means that modern Maoists should read "Imperialism and Revolution" by Enver Hoxha

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/imp_rev/toc.htm

[Hiero]

The PRC actively supported the Khmer Rouge right until the bitter end. The Sino–Vietnamese War was the Chinese response to Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia.

He asked about "Mao's China". Mao was 3 years dead when China invaded Vietnam.

[RNK]

The USSR did way more to aid the progressive cause than the PRC did.

Physically, maybe, but only due to China's relative unindustrialized character. They couldn't afford to send billions of dollars to anyone willing to renoune the US. Then, of course, there's Mao's denunciation of Kruschev's "peaceful co-existence" theory. Funny, that Mao urged constant struggle with western imperialists, while the Soviet Union urged peace.


The PRC actively supported the Khmer Rouge right until the bitter end. The Sino–Vietnamese War was the Chinese response to Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia.

China's friendly relations with the PRC, and the war with Vietnam, were instigated by the revisionists who took power after Mao's death. One thing I can not understand is why people refuse to realize the dramatic shift in ideology that occured with the successful coup of the PRC.


China's foreign policy was (post Stalin) largely based around undermining whatever the Soviet Union was up to. That is the long and short of it. It was plain realpolitik.

Largely, yes. The revisionist government greatly feared the Soviets.


The USSR generally aided progressive movements the PRC generally aided reactionaries. Prove me otherwise. With facts and examples.

The PRC did -- after the mid-60s, after the revisionist coup. A convenient example of the PRC's aiding of progressive movements was the fact that China trained and educated thousands of revolutionaries from around the world, many of whom worked with the likes of Che in various movements he was involved with.


It means that modern Maoists should read "Imperialism and Revolution" by Enver Hoxha


Hoxha has more than demonstrated the inability to recognize the difference between Maoist China and Revisionist China, much like a great many people on this board.


He asked about "Mao's China". Mao was 3 years dead when China invaded Vietnam.

Not to mention about 15 years marginalized by revisionists.

[manic expression]

Physically, maybe, but only due to China's relative unindustrialized character. They couldn't afford to send billions of dollars to anyone willing to renoune the US. Then, of course, there's Mao's denunciation of Kruschev's "peaceful co-existence" theory. Funny, that Mao urged constant struggle with western imperialists, while the Soviet Union urged peace.

Cuba was relatively unindustrialized and still provided tens of thousands of fighters for the Angolan revolutionaries, not to mention material support for revolutionary and anti-imperialist movements throughout Latin America. The USSR backed anti-imperialist sides, whereas China backed whatever other side there was. It has nothing to do with industrialization and everything to do with objectives.


China's friendly relations with the PRC, and the war with Vietnam, were instigated by the revisionists who took power after Mao's death. One thing I can not understand is why people refuse to realize the dramatic shift in ideology that occured with the successful coup of the PRC.

It wasn't a coup, it was the logical end of the process Mao initiated. The bureaucratic caste was Mao's preferred method of rule, and its gradual growth in power and marginalization of Mao was Mao's own doing. Not only did Mao isolate himself and use revolutionary-minded workers as pawns in his bureaucratic power plays (the Cultural Revolution being a good example), not only was he hopelessly inept at economic policy (the Great Leap Forward being a good example), he patronized the bureaucrats until they became too powerful for him.

Don't try to make the fate of China a coincidence: it was a consequence of Maoist policy.


Largely, yes. The revisionist government greatly feared the Soviets.

If you'll recall, Mao was very much around when the Sino-Soviet Split occurred. Stop throwing around empty terms and look at the facts.


The PRC did -- after the mid-60s, after the revisionist coup. A convenient example of the PRC's aiding of progressive movements was the fact that China trained and educated thousands of revolutionaries from around the world, many of whom worked with the likes of Che in various movements he was involved with.

Why do I always get the feeling that Maoists are eternally trying to make Che into a Maoist? Che and the July 26th Movement had no support from either China or the USSR; after the revolution, it was the USSR that provided crucial means of defense from American imperialism. Che did agree with some of Mao's writings, especially on guerrilla warfare, but that is not where the controversey lies (even non-Maoists can agree that Mao was adept at guerrilla warfare).


Not to mention about 15 years marginalized by revisionists.

You mean he was marginalized by his own folly.

[Prairie Fire]

RNK


Hoxha has more than demonstrated the inability to recognize the difference between Maoist China and Revisionist China, much like a great many people on this board.


And you base this analysis on what? What have you read by Hoxha?

On the contrary, Hoxha was quite fair with Mao Tse Tung, giving him the benefit of the doubt for many decades. In his analysis of China in "Revolution and Imperialism" he explicitly attributes many of the theoretical errors of China to Hua Ko Feng and Deng Xioping. At many times he is criticizing the Chinese leadership in general.

When he does analyze Mao, he often gives him the benefit of the doubt, trying to sift through the propaganda, deciding wether erroneous lines and policies truly did originate with Mao, but proves that even if Mao was not the father of many ideas, he still made too many errors that can undeniably be attributed to him, regardless of the actions of the revisionist Chinese leadership to come.

On a related note, many contemporary Maoists, notably Chairman Gonzalo of Peru, showed an inability to distinguish between Enver Hoxha and Ramiz Alia (revisionist), but that is neither here nor there.



Then, of course, there's Mao's denunciation of Kruschev's "peaceful co-existence" theory. Funny, that Mao urged constant struggle with western imperialists, while the Soviet Union urged peace.



I seem to recall the PPSH denounced it first (I'm not trying to "one-up" you, I'm just saying).

Anyways, that is great that China denounced Kruschevite peaceful coexistance with the west (and for a time, during the Korean and Indochinese conflicts, practiced what they preached,), but in the later years of the Maoist CPC (before Maos own death), they dumped this concept, and went beyond the Kruschevites "peaceful coexistence", and became open collaborators with the United States, against the USSR.

Albania, despite getting bullied by both superpowers, never "chose a side" unti the collapse of socialism;they denounced both (and eventually all three) superpowers vigorously and un-hypocritically.



One thing I can not understand is why people refuse to realize the dramatic shift in ideology that occured with the successful coup of the PRC.


:rolleyes:. This is not so.

To say that I am incapable of realizing the dramatic shift in ideology between the Maoist era and the Revisionist era is not true; I recognize that Mao was infinately more revolutionary than Deng Xioping and company. However, he was still a revisionist in his own right.

Kim Il Sung of DPRK was certainly much more revolutionary and preferable to, say, Gorbachev. That doesn't mean, however that Kim Il Sung was not still a revisionist. It is possible to be gung ho and anti-capitalist, and still be a revisionist.

I recognize that the Deng clique (not unlike Gorbachev or Alia,) were revisionists actively moving towards capitalism; I recognize that the Deng clique was much more erroneous than Mao; Still, Mao was erroneous.
This can not be denied.


A convenient example of the PRC's aiding of progressive movements was the fact that China trained and educated thousands of revolutionaries from around the world, many of whom worked with the likes of Che in various movements he was involved with.

But that is the point: Some of the movements China aided were progressive.

I mean, I realize that you can't win them all, and occasionally a reactionary group can change their rhetoric a bit and slip under your radar, but China didn't seem to have any sort of guidelines or standards when picking groups to support.

For example, in all of Africa, of all of the post-colonial leaders, why Mobutu? I know, you may say

"All of the other African revisionist leaders (Mengistu, Nyere, Mugabe) were all in the Soviet sphere".

Well, given the opportunist nature of most of these leaders, they would have changed their stripes if the PRC offered aid.

"But many of them came to power by coup, in a putchist fashion rather than a peoples revolution" .

Right, but so did Mobutu.

So the question remains: Why Mobutu? What did they hope to accomplish in Zaire? Was getting Mobutu and his government to wear Zongshan suits, and change a bit of their rhetoric a real victory for the revolution, in any sense? That really is Quadafism, no?

Unfortunately, everywhere the PRC spread seeds of "revolution", at best they nurtured the growth of Nationalism (DPRK,Vietnam, Kampuchea); at worst, they nurtured fascism (Aparthied South Africa, Pinochets Chile),Islamism, and all other kinds of dis-tasteful trends.

The only genuine, revolutionary Maoist trends to emerge (Sendero Luminiso, Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), New peoples Army, etc...)
emerged AFTER the death of Mao, AFTER the revisionist take over, without Chinese aid and support, rather than as a result of it.

When I said that Maoists should read Revolution and Imperialism ,I didn't write that to be a preachy ideologue, and I didn't write it to hear the sound of keys clicking on my keyboard.

I was serious. Follow the link, read what you can, and it will help to give you an idea where I'm coming from.

Remember, for those of you who don't know, I'm an ex-Maoist.
When I talk about Mao, I've actually read a lot of Mao; 1/3 of my bookshelf is Either by Mao, or by Maoist parties.

Revolution and Imperialist is sort of the "12-step program" for recovering Maoists. Follow the link,comrades.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...mp_rev/toc.htm


I hesitate to debate with RNK; how long are you going to hold a grudge about this little discussion :rolleyes:.


Manic expression:



Cuba was relatively unindustrialized and still provided tens of thousands of fighters for the Angolan revolutionaries, not to mention material support for revolutionary and anti-imperialist movements throughout Latin America.


:glare: Yes, well... Cubas mercinaric adventures in Africa weren't necesarilly something to clap about either, much the same as China's indiscriminate support for questionable folks.

Anyways...


Why do I always get the feeling that Maoists are eternally trying to make Che into a Maoist

Most contemporary Maoists view Che as a left-adventurist, and possiblly rightfully so.

I'm not sure he was a Maoist, but definately an Anti-revisionist.

[manic expression]

Yes, well... Cubas mercinaric adventures in Africa weren't necesarilly something to clap about either, much the same as China's indiscriminate support for questionable folks.

It most assuredly is something to clap about. And stand and clap about.

Cuba has consistently sacrificed itself and its own security for the wellbeing of revolutionary movements around the world. The crucial and substantial Cuban aid to the Angolan struggle is just another example of this.

Stalinists, on the other hand, have consistently done the exact opposite: sacrificing the wellbeing of revolutionary movements for their own security and benefit.


Most contemporary Maoists view Che as a left-adventurist, and possiblly rightfully so.

I'm not sure he was a Maoist, but definately an Anti-revisionist.

He wasn't a Maoist. That's an indisputable fact. Did he agree with some of Mao's writings? Yes, but that is quite another matter.

Was he an anti-revisionist? IMO, it is incorrect to think that an "anti-revisionist" would be fine with accepting Khruschev's Soviet aid. The Cuban communists have accepted the aid of those willing to be their allies in the struggle for socialism; they have not let sectarianism cloud their judgment.

[RNK]

Cuba was relatively unindustrialized and still provided tens of thousands of fighters for the Angolan revolutionaries, not to mention material support for revolutionary and anti-imperialist movements throughout Latin America.

As did China; many revolutionaries involved in that movement and movements throughout Latin America and Africa received financial and material support from China. During the revolutionary process it was an accepted norm that highly-dedicated cadres would travel to the Soviet Union or China in order to receive schooling in communist theory and revolutionary warfare. It hardly seems natural that China would give the enemies of these movements money, while training the leaders of these movements.


It wasn't a coup, it was the logical end of the process Mao initiated.

Saying that is about as illogical as me trying to claim that Trotsky's assassination was the logical end of the process he initiated. The fact remains that in the end, it was Mao urging the masses to rise up against the authority of the state and the party.


If you'll recall, Mao was very much around when the Sino-Soviet Split occurred. Stop throwing around empty terms and look at the facts.

Yes, he was; what does this have to do with anything? Mao recognized the revisionist coup in the USSR and spoke against it (and the liberalization and market reforms of the Soviet economy). It was China's own revisionists who would later view the Soviet Union as a military enemy and act against it; partly due to the Soviet Union's mobilization of several hundred thousand troops on the Chinese border.


Why do I always get the feeling that Maoists are eternally trying to make Che into a Maoist?

He was, for one. Mobilizing the peasants into a revolutionary army to carry out a guerilla war? Anyway, the point is that China was just as involved with revolutionary movements throughout the world as the USSR.


You mean he was marginalized by his own folly.

Perhaps. Realistically, though, he was marginalized by party officials who would, immediately after, begin to reintroduce privatization, disband worker and peasant communes, and essentially destroyed what remained of China's socialist character.


And you base this analysis on what? What have you read by Hoxha?


"Imperialism and the Revolution".


On the contrary, Hoxha was quite fair with Mao Tse Tung, giving him the benefit of the doubt for many decades. In his analysis of China in "Revolution and Imperialism" he explicitly attributes many of the theoretical errors of China to Hua Ko Feng and Deng Xioping.

He later goes on to throw Mao and Deng in the same sack and label the entirety of the Chinese revolutionary experience as little more than reactionary and revisionist. Throughout his later texts about China (namely, those written after the revisionist coup in China) he shows a distinct inability to recognize the existence of the coup and differentiate Maoist China from Revisionist China.


but in the later years of the Maoist CPC (before Maos own death),

You do realize that Mao's marginalization occured over a decade before his death, right? China began to pursue its revisionist agenda and counter-revolutionary acts during the mid-60s, which was one of the main reasons for the GPCR.


This can not be denied.

And this is something I have never denied. I can not agree, however, that Mao was a revisionist; I recognize and to a point understand his economic faulters but I hold him as one of the few theoreticians who never abandoned a consistent and materialistically proper revolutionary line.


"But many of them came to power by coup, in a putchist fashion rather than a peoples revolution" .

You mean like the Afghanistan "Socialist" generals who intigated a coup and then "invited" the Soviet Union in?


So the question remains: Why Mobutu?

Its funny you ask, as China's relationship with Mobutu is a generally good example of the revisionist policies that occured during the 60s and 70s.

First, we know that, during the early 60s, China was a fervent supporter of the revolutioniary movement in the Congo; they provided financial and material and ideological support for the revolutionary forces. After Mobutu's coup, both the Soviet Union and China were somewhat hostile to him. It wasn't until the 70s (long after the revisionist coup) that relations between the Congo and China lightened.

So to me, it seems odd that at one point, China will openly support a progressive movement in that country, and then reject the coup's legitimacy, only to become a large supporter years later. It's almost as if something within China changed during that period, that led it from supporting a progressive movement to supporting a repressive one.. I wonder what that change could have been?


The only genuine, revolutionary Maoist trends to emerge (Sendero Luminiso, Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), New peoples Army, etc...)
emerged AFTER the death of Mao, AFTER the revisionist take over, without Chinese aid and support, rather than as a result of it.

You obviously have the ability to recognize the importance of the revisionist coup (atleast enough to type it), and yet continue to accuse Revisionist China of supporting regressive and reactionary regimes and movements throughout the world, as if expecting me to answer to them or explain what makes it okay.

Nothing makes it okay. China's support of reactionary regimes is nothing more than Imperialism with Chinese Characteristics, if I may use that pun. Starting with the coup, Revisionist China pursued a policy of supporting anyone who would support them, in the same way as the Soviet Union and the United States. Why do you expect me to defend them for this?


When I said that Maoists should read Revolution and Imperialism ,I didn't write that to be a preachy ideologue, and I didn't write it to hear the sound of keys clicking on my keyboard.

I was serious. Follow the link, read what you can, and it will help to give you an idea where I'm coming from.

Remember, for those of you who don't know, I'm an ex-Maoist.

I've read it already, and as I said, it is little more than a reaction to China's skewed "three worlds" theory and an effort to link Mao himself with the ideology and actions of Revisionist China, which is simply erroneous. I would expect an ex-Maoist to recognize the legitimacy of what Mao wrote, and recognize the differences between those writings and the actions and policies of the PRC. That is why there are many revolutionary movements throughout the world today who adhere to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (or Mao Zedong Thought); they understand the theoretical implication of Mao's writings and all universally recognize Revisionist China as nothing more than an enemy; I'd even go so far as to say that modern Maoists view China as more of an enemy than revisionist USSR. Case in point, to add again to the list of reactionary regimes China has supported, they actively give financial and even material support to the national government of Nepal during the revolutionary war, and have declared, like the US, that the CPN(M) is a terrorist organization.


He wasn't a Maoist. That's an indisputable fact. Did he agree with some of Mao's writings? Yes, but that is quite another matter.


Again; mobilizing the peasantry, not the urban proletariat, to rise up and create a guerilla army to bring about revolution via a protracted people's (ie guerilla war); strict adherence to the theory that the People's Army and the People's Party must go hand-in-hand and one can not exist without the other; these sound quite a lot like Maoism. Infact, I'd like to know which of Guevara's beliefs contradict Maoist theory (I can name a few; can you?)

[Prairie Fire]

RNK


"Imperialism and the Revolution".



The whole thing? It's over 300 pages.



Throughout his later texts about China (namely, those written after the revisionist coup in China) he shows a distinct inability to recognize the existence of the coup and differentiate Maoist China from Revisionist China.


Which texts? Reflections on china? I may have it.


You do realize that Mao's marginalization occured over a decade before his death, right? China began to pursue its revisionist agenda and counter-revolutionary acts during the mid-60s, which was one of the main reasons for the GPCR.

I realize it, but the fact that Mao could initiate the cultural revolution is evidence that he still held power, even state power.


You mean like the Afghanistan "Socialist" generals who intigated a coup and then "invited" the Soviet Union in?

erm, okay....
I was aware that the PDPA came into power by coup. Did you not also hear the arguments I made against putchist Afro-communist revisionists?

Rejecting the Mujihideen doesn't necesarilly mean supporting the Soviet social-imperialists. Unfortunately, this bi-polar outlook was the one taken by Maoists in Afghanistan, as they ralllied to fight alongside the Mujihideen, or sat on the sidelines.


So to me, it seems odd that at one point, China will openly support a progressive movement in that country, and then reject the coup's legitimacy, only to become a large supporter years later. It's almost as if something within China changed during that period, that led it from supporting a progressive movement to supporting a repressive one.. I wonder what that change could have been?


You over simplify by attributing everything to the Deng clique. Mobutu met with Mao in 1973. I know, you say he was "marginallized" by that time, but if this was completely true, then what was Mao doing with him? Having tea and biscuits?

If Mao held minimal state power by 73' ( he was party chairman until '76,when he died) what the hell was he doing meeting with Mobutu?
I mean, it couldn't have been state related buisness, right? As you said, Mao was marginalized. So, what, Mao was just kickin' it with a fervent anti-communist reactionary who he had no desire to meet? :rolleyes:

Mao met with Nixon at one point as well in 1972. Once again ,I'll take your word for it that Mao was marginalized (exceptionally so, for the party chairman), so what was that meeting about?

If Mao had even an ounce of state power, then meeting with anti-communist reactionaries for reasons for the advance of China was improper and treasonous. If he had no state power, and he was as legitimate as you claim he is, I can see no logical reason he would meet with any of these shady persynalities.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Nixon_Mao_1972-02-29.png

As I said, you over simplify. You attribute everything to the Deng clique, but it just isn't so.


You obviously have the ability to recognize the importance of the revisionist coup (atleast enough to type it), and yet continue to accuse Revisionist China of supporting regressive and reactionary regimes and movements throughout the world, as if expecting me to answer to them or explain what makes it okay.

I recognize the revisionist coup in China as I recognize the revisionist coup in USSR, in Albania, etc,etc.

Still, that doesn't mean that the government that the Deng revisionists captured in China wasn't allready thoroughly riddled with revisionism.

My Comrade, a Romanian, tells me that the "revolution" in Romania was a military coup against Ceasescu and the communist party. Now, certainly they were reactionaries, and certainly they changed the policies and direction of the country, but that doesn't mean that Ceasescu was so great to begin with, you dig?

Now, I allready told you, as did Enver Hoxha, that Mao himself made errors, decades before his death, before "marginalization". Assuming you've read Revolution and Imperialism as you say, you would have read
a few examples at least.


Why do you expect me to defend them for this?

I don't; I don't expect you to do anything. If you wish to defend Mao though, that may be prudent.



I've read it already, and as I said, it is little more than a reaction to China's skewed "three worlds" theory and an effort to link Mao himself with the ideology and actions of Revisionist China, which is simply erroneous.

Do you believe RIM's claim, that the "theory of three worlds" did not originate with Mao, and was erroneously attributed to him?


I would expect an ex-Maoist to recognize the legitimacy of what Mao wrote, and recognize the differences between those writings and the actions and policies of the PRC

I'm not as hardcore as a lot of Hoxhaists; if I was, I would have liquidated a lot of my book rack. I think that yes, there is some wisdom in the theory, certainly.

And I do see the differences, the hypocrisies, between theory and practice in the PRC. i've pointed this out so many times.

Manic expression:

It most assuredly is something to clap about. And stand and clap about.

Cuba has consistently sacrificed itself and its own security for the wellbeing of revolutionary movements around the world. The crucial and substantial Cuban aid to the Angolan struggle is just another example of this.


Well... allright, as far as Angola is concerned, it may have been fair game for the cubans to interfere, as the South Africans were interefering. Still....

The whole thing though is really social-imperialist. You neglect to mention their other adventures in Africa, notably their support for the putchist Mengistu regime in Ethiopia.



Stalinists, on the other hand, have consistently done the exact opposite: sacrificing the wellbeing of revolutionary movements for their own security and benefit.


Well, that was gratuitous.

Notice how I'm making reference to specific events, Manic?



IMO, it is incorrect to think that an "anti-revisionist" would be fine with accepting Khruschev's Soviet aid


He wasn't; he denounced them, flamed them to a crisp.Fidel was okay with accepting it.

[Herman]

Fidel was okay with accepting it.

There is nothing wrong with accepting aid when it is needed, especially when establishing a socialist system. The error is being too dependant of foreign aid.

[Cheung Mo]

Incidentally, what would have happened if Washington and the Maoists had stayed completely neutral in Afghanistan's civil war? Do you think the Middle East would be better off today?

[manic expression]

As did China; many revolutionaries involved in that movement and movements throughout Latin America and Africa received financial and material support from China. During the revolutionary process it was an accepted norm that highly-dedicated cadres would travel to the Soviet Union or China in order to receive schooling in communist theory and revolutionary warfare. It hardly seems natural that China would give the enemies of these movements money, while training the leaders of these movements.

You'll have to provide a source. The Cuban contingent in Angola included around 50,000 fighters IIRC. What did China do? They gave support to Savimbi and UNITA. That stands as evidence of my argument.


Saying that is about as illogical as me trying to claim that Trotsky's assassination was the logical end of the process he initiated. The fact remains that in the end, it was Mao urging the masses to rise up against the authority of the state and the party.Trotsky's assassination was the result of a bureaucratic takeover. The difference is that Trotsky fought the bureaucrats, whereas Mao patronized them and fostered their growth. Mao was "urging the masses" to side with him over his bureaucratic rivals; a pure power play which tried to use the working class as a pawn.


Yes, he was; what does this have to do with anything? Mao recognized the revisionist coup in the USSR and spoke against it (and the liberalization and market reforms of the Soviet economy). It was China's own revisionists who would later view the Soviet Union as a military enemy and act against it; partly due to the Soviet Union's mobilization of several hundred thousand troops on the Chinese border.Again, drop the empty labels and deal with facts. Mao broke with the Soviet Union because Stalin died and Mao saw himself as more fit than Khrushchev. What liberalization are you talking about? The only real policy change under destalinization was basically just denouncing Stalin and his excesses.


He was, for one. Mobilizing the peasants into a revolutionary army to carry out a guerilla war? Anyway, the point is that China was just as involved with revolutionary movements throughout the world as the USSR.Sorry, but that just won't fly. He wasn't a Maoist, there's nothing to support that claim. Let's allow Che to explain:

"[i]...if today we are putting into practice what is called Marxism, it is because we discovered it here....and after seizing more than 600 weapons, a small pamphlet written by Mao Zedong fell into our hands. [Applause] That pamphlet, which dealt with the strategic problems of the revolutionary war in China, described the campaigns that Chiang Kai-shek carried out against the popular forces...

Not only had the same words been used on opposite sides of the globe to designate their campaigns, but both dictators resorted to the same type of campaign to try to destroy the popular forces. And the popular forces here, without knowing the manuals that had already been written about the strategy and tactics of guerrilla warfare, used the same methods as those used on the opposite side of the world to combat the dictatorship's forces.[i]" (Source: Che Guevara Talks to Young People")

Che and the July 26th Movement didn't know about Maoism, they just applied similar tactics that were effective for the situation at hand. They weren't following Mao, as this shows. Did they agree with Mao's military writings? Of course, Mao possessed a keen military mind. But again, that is not the issue.


Perhaps. Realistically, though, he was marginalized by party officials who would, immediately after, begin to reintroduce privatization, disband worker and peasant communes, and essentially destroyed what remained of China's socialist character.Mao's multiple blunders isolated him from the rest of the bureaucratic caste. He got isolated by a bunch of counterrevolutionaries, yes, but Mao himself contributed to that situation in the first place. Not only did he allow himself to get isolated even when he had support throughout the country (but not the bureaucracy, which tells you how much worker democracy China had...practically none), but he also followed policies which depended on the bureaucrats and helped contribute to their power.

Mao led a tremendous revolution which established socialist property relations in the most populous country on Earth. However, after this point, he made many mistakes and followed the path of Stalinist bureaucratization, which ultimately led to the counterrevolutionary policies we see all too clearly today. The Chinese Revolution shows the damage that deformities will do to a worker state.


Again; mobilizing the peasantry, not the urban proletariat, to rise up and create a guerilla army to bring about revolution via a protracted people's (ie guerilla war); strict adherence to the theory that the People's Army and the People's Party must go hand-in-hand and one can not exist without the other; these sound quite a lot like Maoism. Infact, I'd like to know which of Guevara's beliefs contradict Maoist theory (I can name a few; can you?)Do you even know the history of the Cuban Revolution? The peasants sustained the guerrillas, but the July 26th Movement was everywhere on the island. In Santiago de Cuba and Havana, the July 26th Movement was hindering and checking Batista's efforts through sabatoge and propaganda. The cities and the underground were very important to the success of the revolution. That being said, Che did indeed mobilize the peasantry; did he do it because Maoism told him to? No, he did it because the material conditions called for such a policy, as it did in China.

China saw the Cultural Revolution, a dearth of worker democracy and a powerful bureaucratic caste; Cuba saw none of this, and fortunately so. The Chinese communists emphasized self-flagellating "self-criticism" and a pervasive personality cult; the Cuban communists rejected both and more (just like the Bolsheviks) in favor of democratic centralism and treating leaders like leaders and nothing more. This is precisely why the Cuban Revolution has succeeded and endured whereas the Chinese Revolution faltered and went astray. I can go on and on if you'd like, but that's enough for now.

RavenBlade


The whole thing though is really social-imperialist. You neglect to mention their other adventures in Africa, notably their support for the putchist Mengistu regime in Ethiopia.Tell me, did the Cubans try to exploit any country in Africa? No, they did the exact opposite by helping the African working classes fight REAL imperialists. The "support" for Mengistu was mostly through doctors and medical workers (a hallmark of Cuban socialism), which directly aided the Ethiopian people when they needed it most.


Well, that was gratuitous.

Notice how I'm making reference to specific events, Manic?Perhaps it was gratuitous, but I felt it needed to be said. I could bring up specific events, but that's unnecessary at this time. Let me ask you this, in full curiosity: what did Hoxha's government ever do for revolutionary movements (or poor countries throughout the world)? I'd like to hear your opinion.


He wasn't; he denounced them, flamed them to a crisp.Fidel was okay with accepting it.I don't recall anything of the sort happening. Every Cuban revolutionary understood that Soviet aid was crucial in checking the American imperialists. Had it not been for Soviet military assistance, Kennedy or LBJ would have been throwing weekly dance parties in Havana for their capitalist cronies.

[Prairie Fire]

what did Hoxha's government ever do for revolutionary movements (or poor countries throughout the world)? I'd like to hear your opinion.



The PPSH largely had it's own battles in the economic sphere to fight, but they still found time to help out with the revolutionary struggle of many fraternal parties around the world, notably the Communist Party of Canada
(Marxist-Leninist) which achieved a high degree of success of any Hoxhaist party.

Unless I'm mistaken, they also shipped out guns to friendly groups, but not just to stick a thorn in the side of enemies.


The "support" for Mengistu was mostly through doctors and medical workers (a hallmark of Cuban socialism), which directly aided the Ethiopian people when they needed it most.

As well as 18,000 Cuban troops to put down revolts of seperatists in Ogaden and Eritrea.:rolleyes:

This is typical of Cubas adverntures in Africa, acting as temperate-climate mercinaries for Moscow.



I don't recall anything of the sort happening. Every Cuban revolutionary understood that Soviet aid was crucial in checking the American imperialists.


I believe this was shortly before he left for Bolivia.


Had it not been for Soviet military assistance, Kennedy or LBJ would have been throwing weekly dance parties in Havana for their capitalist cronies.

Eh?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Even the staunchest anti-revisionist should have the common sense to realise that the Soviet Union was much closer to the aspirations of Marx, Engels, and Lenin than anything Pol Pot and his cronies were able to shit out. No amount of animosity between Beijing and Moscow can justify allying with a mass-murdering tyrant who got his rocks off by slaughtering Cambodians of Vietnamese heritage. If anything, you think Mao would want vengeance for Washington's involvement in Suharto's cleansing of Indonesia's Chinese minority. And incidentally, what planet are you living on if you consider Pol Pot a good guy and Ho Chi Minh a bad guy?

Ideologically speaking, if one is to launch a "national-democratic" revolution in a small country, do it the Ho Chi Minh way. I have my quipes about such (the thoroughly petit-bourgeois nature of "national-democratic" revolutions, with the peasantry in the lead; nationalistic sentiments; small country), but Ho Chi Minh was committed to strengthening his country in the transition from colonialism to state capitalism (unlike Mao and his "Great Leap Backward," eschewing Soviet-style economic development plans).

The tragedy is that Ho Chi Minh, for all his accomplishments in France (even helping to form the French Communist Party), wasn't the leader of the Chinese revolution, let alone a greater pan-Oriental revolution (spanning China, Vietnam, the Koreas, etc.). :(

[I know: "Great Men" stuff, but Mao was a bit eccentric. Left-communists on this board have said that Mao would've made a great bourgeois revolutionary leader in the 19th century, but I strongly disagree.]

Thankfully, I was never a Maoist ("Social-Revolutionary with Chinese characteristics") even in my Stalinist ("four classics," though) days. :)

RavenBlade: I'm interested to hear more about how you turned away from that thoroughly "Social-Revolutionary with Chinese characteristics" ideology known as Maoism.

[RNK]

You'll have to provide a source. The Cuban contingent in Angola included around 50,000 fighters IIRC. What did China do? They gave support to Savimbi and UNITA. That stands as evidence of my argument.

Read Che's Diary of an African Dream. In it he describes arms and cadres received by his revolutionary forces from China.


The difference is that Trotsky fought the bureaucrats, whereas Mao patronized them and fostered their growth. Mao was "urging the masses" to side with him over his bureaucratic rivals; a pure power play which tried to use the working class as a pawn.

Mao urged the masses to rise up against the beauraucracy. Unless you can provide a source of him saying "side with me!"


Mao broke with the Soviet Union because Stalin died and Mao saw himself as more fit than Khrushchev

Sounds like you read too much wikipedia. The break with the Soviet Union actually began earlier, when Stalin was still alive; towards the end of Stalin's life Mao became increasingly critical of Stalin and even wrote a large paper about his criticisms. The death of Stalin, and the USSR's hard turn to the right under Kruschev and Breznev and later leaders, is what broke the camel's back.


Che and the July 26th Movement didn't know about Maoism, they just applied similar tactics that were effective for the situation at hand.

Considering the July 26th movement wasn't even communist, it only seems natural.


They weren't following Mao, as this shows. Did they agree with Mao's military writings? Of course, Mao possessed a keen military mind. But again, that is not the issue.

Not then, no. But throughout the rest of his life, Che grew increasingly closer to Maoism, adopting Maoist ideals and even openly siding with China during the Sino-Soviet split (while Cuba largely sided with the Soviets). For instance, protracted people's war became one of Che's mottos, as was the relationship between the Party, the Army and the People. He also drew a lot of inspiration from Maoist Vietcong forces.

I'm sure it is in every Trotskyist's best interests to try and "shield" Che from the "horrors" of Maoism. The two are virtually indistinguishable. The only major difference between "Guevarism" and "Maoism" is the skewed relationship in which Che believed the Army more important than the Party.


Mao's multiple blunders isolated him from the rest of the bureaucratic caste. He got isolated by a bunch of counterrevolutionaries, yes, but Mao himself contributed to that situation in the first place.

One could just as easily claim that Lenin (or even Trotsky) made blunders which led to the Soviet Union as we "know" it today. The claim that China's degeneration into counterrevolution was Mao's fault bears striking resemblence to Anarchist's claims that Lenin caused the revolution in Russia to degenerate into totalitarianism. It's a skewing of fact in that case, just as it is in Mao's case.


Not only did he allow himself to get isolated even when he had support throughout the country (but not the bureaucracy, which tells you how much worker democracy China had...practically non)

So it's your stance that once any amount of worker's democracy has been implanted into a country, it is invincible from the efforts of counter-revolutionaries and can not be undone? An interesting fact, after the revisionist coup, one of the revisionist's first national acts was to disband all of the worker's and peasant's councils throughout the entire country.


Mao led a tremendous revolution which established socialist property relations in the most populous country on Earth. However, after this point, he made many mistakes and followed the path of Stalinist bureaucratization, which ultimately led to the counterrevolutionary policies we see all too clearly today. The Chinese Revolution shows the damage that deformities will do to a worker state.

Thankfully, we have history to learn from, and I'm fairly certain Mao understood his errors, culminating in the attempt to rectify them with the GPCR. Mao did not have the foresight to keep the Party clean of counter-revolutionary elements, and this may be his fault, it may not; Mao was not some god-like being who sat on giant spire overlooking all of his kingdom.

Perhaps the most important conflict which arose between Mao, socialism and the revisionist beauraucracy was immediately after the Great Leap Forward. As you may or may not know, the GLF was a grandiose industrialization plan which sought to bring China into the modern age. It largely failed (though its predecessor campaign was almost entirely successful). And it failed for several reasons. First, and perhaps foremost, were the natural disasters which struck China during this time. Second were the organizational mistakes which led to the problems caused by these disasters to multiply. Third was the beauraucracy using this disaster to essentially remove Mao and take control. It is doubtful that Mao alone could have prevented this tragedy. The problem lay not just with him but throughout the revolutionary cadres which mismanaged the production and distribution of food. It's too easy to blame this all on Mao himself. He was just one man. His opponents most of all should know better than to expect him to be able to single-handedly make or break an economy. ;)


(unlike Mao and his "Great Leap Backward," eschewing Soviet-style economic development plans).

What, exactly, is there not to shun?

[manic expression]

Read Che's Diary of an African Dream. In it he describes arms and cadres received by his revolutionary forces from China.

Che never went to Angola, he went to the Congo, and that (IIRC) was before the Sino-Soviet split. A lot of things changed from that time to Angola.


Mao urged the masses to rise up against the beauraucracy. Unless you can provide a source of him saying "side with me!"

No, Mao urged the masses to rise up against certain bureaucrats, not the bureaucracy itself. If the masses DID rise up against the bureaucratic caste as an institution, China would be a lot better than it is today. As it happened, the Cultural Revolution was a bureaucratic power play.


Sounds like you read too much wikipedia. The break with the Soviet Union actually began earlier, when Stalin was still alive; towards the end of Stalin's life Mao became increasingly critical of Stalin and even wrote a large paper about his criticisms. The death of Stalin, and the USSR's hard turn to the right under Kruschev and Breznev and later leaders, is what broke the camel's back.

That being said, RNK, Mao felt he was better qualified than Khrushchev to take a leading role. You simply cannot dismiss this as a source of tension, because it was very much there. Furthermore, while Mao was critical of Stalin, I do not think he outright opposed him; even if he did, that was not the locus of the Sino-Soviet split, unless you can show me otherwise.


Considering the July 26th movement wasn't even communist, it only seems natural.

That's quite a statement, considering Che Guevara and other established Marxist communists were among the ranks of the July 26th Movement. Was it explicitly communist? Not at that point, but as Che pointed out in the quote I gave, the Cuban revolutionaries found Marxism in their struggles. The formation of the Cuban Communist Party after the overthrow of Batista just shows how much the July 26th Movement had embraced communism. Castro portrayed himself as an anti-authoritarian and refused to call himself a communist until after the chips had gone down, but this was a political maneuver to keep the heat off of the Cuban Revolutionaries until after the revolution was consolidated and adequately defended.


Not then, no. But throughout the rest of his life, Che grew increasingly closer to Maoism, adopting Maoist ideals and even openly siding with China during the Sino-Soviet split (while Cuba largely sided with the Soviets). For instance, protracted people's war became one of Che's mottos, as was the relationship between the Party, the Army and the People. He also drew a lot of inspiration from Maoist Vietcong forces.

I've asked many people for a source to back this up, and I've gotten nothing. Perhaps you can break the Maoists' losing streak in this regard.

He drew a lot of inspiration from the Vietcong because the Vietcong were fighting imperialism. Not only that, but in the same way he had in Cuba. Does this make him a Maoist? No, it makes him an anti-imperialist who puts the working class above petty sectarian squabbles. Maoists could learn a thing or two from him.


I'm sure it is in every Trotskyist's best interests to try and "shield" Che from the "horrors" of Maoism. The two are virtually indistinguishable. The only major difference between "Guevarism" and "Maoism" is the skewed relationship in which Che believed the Army more important than the Party.

Cut the garbage and look at the facts, RNK. Read the quote I gave: Che was not a Maoist, he simply applied the tactics most suited to Cuba at the time. Were he a Maoist, he would have promoted a personality cult (he didn't), demanded self-flagellating "self-criticism" (he didn't), rejected Soviet aid (he didn't) and relied on bureaucratic mechanisms for governance (he didn't). Che's words and actions back me up completely, while you are resorting to nebulous statements.


One could just as easily claim that Lenin (or even Trotsky) made blunders which led to the Soviet Union as we "know" it today. The claim that China's degeneration into counterrevolution was Mao's fault bears striking resemblence to Anarchist's claims that Lenin caused the revolution in Russia to degenerate into totalitarianism. It's a skewing of fact in that case, just as it is in Mao's case.

Yes, and no. The Stalinist takeover resulted primarily from: a.) Russia's backwardness; b.) the many revolutionaries killed during the Civil War, which allowed the bureaucracy to gain power and c.) the failure of the German Revolution. In China, Mao made the bureaucratic caste's takeover all the easier by relying on the bureaucracy from day one. That is why China is the way it is today.


So it's your stance that once any amount of worker's democracy has been implanted into a country, it is invincible from the efforts of counter-revolutionaries and can not be undone? An interesting fact, after the revisionist coup, one of the revisionist's first national acts was to disband all of the worker's and peasant's councils throughout the entire country.

It is my position that worker democracy will check and minimalize the bureaucrats' power. Cuba's rectification process has proven this. However, it is also my position that bureaucracies can overcome worker democracy if they are allowed to grow in strength and influence. This is precisely what happened in the Soviet Union, whereas I do not feel China originally implemented such a large degree of worker democracy.

An interesting fact is that those workers' and peasants' councils were not the center of power in China. The early Soviet Union and Cuba, on the other hand, have done the opposite and made worker democracy the pillar of government.


Thankfully, we have history to learn from, and I'm fairly certain Mao understood his errors, culminating in the attempt to rectify them with the GPCR. Mao did not have the foresight to keep the Party clean of counter-revolutionary elements, and this may be his fault, it may not; Mao was not some god-like being who sat on giant spire overlooking all of his kingdom.

Would Mao be able to see his flaws if he were here today? I think so. However, I do not think that Maoists fully see the character of his mistakes: it is the reliance on bureaucracy that was the problem, not some wily counterrevolutionary elements who somehow outsmarted the entire body of China's revolutionaries.


Perhaps the most important conflict which arose between Mao, socialism and the revisionist beauraucracy was immediately after the Great Leap Forward. As you may or may not know, the GLF was a grandiose industrialization plan which sought to bring China into the modern age. It largely failed (though its predecessor campaign was almost entirely successful). And it failed for several reasons. First, and perhaps foremost, were the natural disasters which struck China during this time. Second were the organizational mistakes which led to the problems caused by these disasters to multiply. Third was the beauraucracy using this disaster to essentially remove Mao and take control. It is doubtful that Mao alone could have prevented this tragedy. The problem lay not just with him but throughout the revolutionary cadres which mismanaged the production and distribution of food. It's too easy to blame this all on Mao himself. He was just one man. His opponents most of all should know better than to expect him to be able to single-handedly make or break an economy.

I largely agree with your view on the GLF. Also, I agree that it is bigger than one person. My position is that China would have resisted counterrevolution far more effectively had worker democracy (aka Soviet power) been made central to power in PRC.

I do not feel that the Chinese communists put enough emphasis on this key issue, and it was indeed fatal. I see Cuba as a socialist country that DID put enough emphasis on worker democracy.

Aside from all the sectarianism, RNK, let me ask you this as a comrade: do you feel that a healthy worker democracy in China would have checked the bureaucracy?

And secondly, let's cut to the chase: do you view Cuba as a socialist country? Why or why not?

RavenBlade


The PPSH largely had it's own battles in the economic sphere to fight, but they still found time to help out with the revolutionary struggle of many fraternal parties around the world, notably the Communist Party of Canada
(Marxist-Leninist) which achieved a high degree of success of any Hoxhaist party.

Unless I'm mistaken, they also shipped out guns to friendly groups, but not just to stick a thorn in the side of enemies.

Just as a side-note: Cuba also had "its own battles in the economic sphere to fight". It still gave monumental military and health support to both revolutionary movements and poor countries around the world.

Aside from all that, to whom did they ship guns?


As well as 18,000 Cuban troops to put down revolts of seperatists in Ogaden and Eritrea.

On Ogaden, Somalia was blatantly the aggressor who tried to take advantage of Ethiopia's weakened state. Furthermore, at that point, it did seem as though Ethiopia was heading towards socialism, and so aiding it against invasion was certainly a very good action.

On Eritrea, please show when and where Cubans were involved.


This is typical of Cubas adverntures in Africa, acting as temperate-climate mercinaries for Moscow.

More like aiding the struggle for socialism, something Stalinists know nothing about.


I believe this was shortly before he left for Bolivia.

Anything to back that up? I doubt it. Nothing of the sort happened.


Eh?

Translation: without Soviet aid, American imperialists would have stepped up its aggression against the Cuban Revolution.

[Juche96]

I don't know too much about the history between Mao (and the CPC) and Pol Pot. During the Vietnam war, the US bombarded Cambodia pretty heavily, which led to death and starvation for much of the country. Cambodia also had a very weak government at the time that was subservient to imperialism.

Supporting an insurgency was the logical thing to do for a revolutionary society like China. Pol Pot and his cronies turned out to be a band of murderers who had little if any clear idea about how to shape the future of their country. From what I've heard, they wanted their country to return to the "agrarian paradise" that it once was in the middle ages. This is idea happens to be completely contrary to Marxism and Leninism.

I'm also not sure that Pol Pot ever publicly declared his movement to be "Maoist", at least not while Mao was alive.