Are there any "unorthodox" Maoists...

[Die Neue Zeit]

Are there any "unorthodox" Maoists in real life... who do NOT uphold "Comrade" Stalin (and who are perhaps sympathetic to Trotsky like they perhaps are to Che)? Given a couple of spotty posts here on this board and Mike Ely's website (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/), I'd like to know out of curiosity.

[Dros]

If you do not uphold COMRADE Stalin, it is very difficult (I would say impossible) to uphold Mao. That being said, there are some Maoists, myself included who don't take a very hard line on Trotsky. While I reject Trotskyism, I don't see Trotsky as the evil, satanic spawn some people make him out to be.

[More Fire for the People]

I have always felt a deep appreciation for Mao and his analysis but I certainly wouldn't call myself a Maoist.

[chegitz guevara]

There are Maoists in both the Workers World Party and their splinter, the Party of Socialism and Liberation. In Europe, there were some fusion efforts between the two churches, but I don't know more than that.

[PigmerikanMao]

I uphold Trotsky and Mao, though I don't dismiss Stalin as trotskyists may want me to. My ideas are my own but with Maoist base- if that makes me unorthodox, I suppose I am.

[Tower of Bebel]

If you do not uphold COMRADE Stalin, it is very difficult (I would say impossible) to uphold Mao.

How? I thought the fusion between maoism and stalinism (stalin's analysis) happened only 'recently'.

[Dros]

How? I thought the fusion between maoism and stalinism (stalin's analysis) happened only 'recently'.

No. Mao explicitly upholds Stalin but with criticism. Mao's analysis of Stalin, his mistakes and his successes and what he added to revolutionary theory are very thorough and explicitly pro-Stalin.

[jacobin1949]

I'm a Mao Zedong Thought follower who supports the Communist Party USA, and Deng Xiaoping Theory

I'm more sympathetic towards Bukharin than towards Trotsky, although I have cooperated with Trotskyist organizations

[Dros]

I'm a Mao Zedong Thought follower who supports the Communist Party USA, and Deng Xiaoping Theory

I'm more sympathetic towards Bukharin than towards Trotsky, although I have cooperated with Trotskyist organizations

Right. So you follow the guy Mao tried to have executed and the other guy that Stalin did execute. Basically, I find your user title apt.


I uphold Trotsky and Mao

That's impossible.

Aren't you a MIM supporter? MIM hated trots. Really hated them.

[RNK]

"Orthodox" and "unorthodox" are stupid labels. People who think that their legitimacy as revolutionaries should be how closely they mimic every point of view or opinion of some long-dead inspiration are shalow-minded.

I consider myself a "Maoist" insofar as I believe Mao to be the most recent in a long chain of revolutionary thinkers and leaders. I uphold Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, and whoever else. I also uphold that they may very well have been wrong on some occasions and that their "followers" may be wrong.

You do not have to agree 100% with someone in order to uphold them. You don't even have to agree with most of what they've said.

As for "unorthodox" and my own comparisons with many "traditions" of Maoism... I think that Lenin was quite wrong on a lot of things, I think some of what Trotsky's said is right, I don't really trust Stalin much at all, and I think Mao's early economic policies in post-revolutionary China were disastrous.

[bezdomni]

The Worker's World Party and the Party for Socialism and Liberation in the U.S. are what I would characterize as "trotskyists for mao".

TC also has this line, more or less...although they aren't feverishly anti-stalin, and consider the USSR under Stalin's leadership a socialist country.

[PigmerikanMao]

Aren't you a MIM supporter? MIM hated trots. Really hated them.
:lol: First off, I'm not from the MIM, they're revisionist scum. Second, you don't have to blindly follow party doctrine to uphold communist ideology. Trotsky sucked ass, yeah, but some of what he said was right- so what he did bring to socialism shouldn't be ignored.

[Dros]

I'm glad to hear your not with MIM. Didn't you use to be?

At any rate, I think this conversation needs to have a better understanding of what "uphold" means. I "uphold" Trotsky as a Bolshevik leader and a revolutionary communist. I also disagree with a lot of what he said. So I uphold him as a revolutionary but not as a theorist. In that sense, I also uphold Vo Ngoyen Giap, Guevara, the Panthers, and numerous others who I don't uphold in a theoretical sense.

I agree with RNK that the notions of "othodoxy" are rather absurd. I also agree that "upholding" someone doesn't mean dogmatically clinging to whatever they say.

That being said, I think Maoism is necessarily built on Stalinism and Stalin's theoretical work and indeed Mao basically said so himself. So I am sympathetic to Trotsky (and have said so many times) in an historical sense but not in a theoretical sense. So again, I think that it is impossible to "uphold" (meaning support the key theoretical contributions of) Mao and uphold Trotsky considering that a lot of what they put forward directly contradicts the other.

[chegitz guevara]

That's impossible.

Not really. I also uphold both Trotsky and Mao. One doesn't need to agree with everything either wrote, but should be open minded enough to reconize the value that both of them added to the movement and to our theory.

[PigmerikanMao]

Not really. I also uphold both Trotsky and Mao. One doesn't need to agree with everything either wrote, but should be open minded enough to reconize the value that both of them added to the movement and to our theory.
My thoughts exactly ;)

and yes, drosera99, I used to support the MIM, but I'm starting to see them in the same light as the RCP, to bureaucratic and self serving. If anyone I'm starting to like ShubelMorgan with my own kind of light Trotsky element. :cool:

[bezdomni]

I disagree with comrade drosera. I do not think Trotsky was a revolutionary communist.

[PigmerikanMao]

I disagree with comrade drosera. I do not think Trotsky was a revolutionary communist.
Care to expound? :confused:

[Dros]

Not really. I also uphold both Trotsky and Mao. One doesn't need to agree with everything either wrote, but should be open minded enough to reconize the value that both of them added to the movement and to our theory.

Both of them added to our movement. But having a nuanced understanding of Maoism and upholding that is incompatable with agreeing with some of the central tenets of Trotsky's work. It is possible to understand both of them as having made possitive historical contributions. But for instance it is impossible to uphold Mao's "New Democracy" theory and also uphold the notion that it is impossible to construct socialism in one country. This is why Maoism as a theory is fundementally grounded in the works of Comrade Stalin.

SovietPants:

I respect Trotsky as a revolutionary not as a theorist. Lenin obviously held a very high opinion of him. It is sad that his misunderstanding of Marxism eventually led him towards counter-revolutionary action. That doesn't mitigate his incredibly important role in the Russian Revolution and the success of socialism in the USSR.

[bezdomni]

Eh, he was very flawed even in the way he went about leading the red army. For example, he had a very hostile view toward the peasantry and as such would not lead the red army to recruit among the peasantry in the countryside. That was very detrimental to the revolution, and had Trotsky had a more correct orientation toward the peasantry...the civil war would have probably ended much sooner and collectivized farming would have gone over much more smoothly.

He also opposed the "joint dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry" from the beginning, in stark contrast to Lenin and Stalin, which he openly admitted.

I suggest comrades read "On Trotskyism: Problems of Theory and History" by Kostas Mavrakis to get a really solid materialist understanding of where Trotsky was coming from politically.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Except that "Comrades" Stalin and Bukharin revised Lenin's revolutionary democracy to include actual bourgeoisie. :glare:


"trotskyists for mao"

This reminded me so long ago of some absurd "Jews for Jesus" missionary campaign. :lol:

[bezdomni]

Except that "Comrades" Stalin and Bukharin revised Lenin's revolutionary democracy to include actual bourgeoisie.
How do you mean? Are you referring to On the National Question? It is Leninist to the core.

[Prairie Fire]

Pigmerikan Mao:

I uphold Trotsky and Mao

RNK

I uphold Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao

What the fuck is with all these Maoists who are hot for Leon? Is 21st century Maoism so bankrupt, that an ideological merger is the only solution?

Sheesh, and to think that in the declaration of the RIM (page 14), the RIM slandered ML parties opposed to them, by accusing the "Dogmatic" PPSH and like-minded parties of being closet Trots.:rolleyes:

Well Jacob, I guess you got your answer here. Thanks for exposing this very...unsettling revelation.


So to summarize this thread...

1. Many modern Maoists (he he; tongue twister) uphold Trotsky, for unknown and erroneous reasons. Jake, if you want a picture of an "un-orthodox Maoist", that is the epitome right there.

2. These same Maoists also uphold the the general juvenile-left tradition of "open-mindeness" and non-conformity that leads to the creation of mish-mash, hybrid paradox ideologies, devoid of context, with conflicting content, rife with inherent contradictions, and altogether slightly more useless than the parent ideologies that they cannibalized.

RNK, seems to be the most ridiculous perpetrator of this. RNK, you uphold Stalin, Trotsky and Mao? Trying to cover all the bases simultaneously, eh? :rolleyes: Why don't you throw in a few more names: Buhkarin,Zinoviev, Deng, Kim il sung, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Luxembourg, Kautsky... I mean, obviously ideological content (and the need to actually explore and committ to any of these ideological lines,) is completely un-necesary to you, so fuck it, throw in more names! Hitler,Churchill, Bush (Sr and Jr), Obama, Mussolini, Thatcher, Clinton (Hillary and Bill), Ghandi, Dalia lama, Franco, Osama Bin Ladin, Milosevich, Huissen....

"Stalin,Trotsky and Mao"...Stop trying to be all things to all people. Oh wait, you do seem to have decided on a concrete ideological line after all:


I think that Lenin was quite wrong on a lot of things, I think some of what Trotsky's said is right, I don't really trust Stalin much at all, and I think Mao's early economic policies in post-revolutionary China were disastrous.

Well congrats on being yet another naive Trotskyist.

Anyways...It is quite common for Maoist organizations (RCP-USA, especially,) to be accused of being crypto Trotskist. Now, I can see more than a little bit of legitimacy to these accusations, judging by this little cross-section of international Maoists.

[chegitz guevara]

RNK, seems to be the most ridiculous perpetrator of this. RNK, you uphold Stalin, Trotsky and Mao? Trying to cover all the bases simultaneously, eh? :rolleyes: Why don't you throw in a few more names: Buhkarin, Zinoviev, Deng, Kim il sung, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Luxembourg, Kautsky... I


Wait, are you saying we can't learn from all these people? We only need Mao?

[Prairie Fire]

Well I'm sure there is something to be learned from all of these persynalities,much in the same way that there is something to be learned from watching a drunk stick a fork in an electrical socket (specifically, "Don't do that."). I find the wacky exploits of many of these persynalities to be educational only in the same sense as "Americas funniest home videos."

My point was, how can you expect to "uphold" contadictory figures with Contradictory aims,motivations and theories (not to mention a dislike for each other.). Some of these ideologies have enough contradictions as it is; I can only imagine what kind of jumbled mess you get from butchering them, and trying to force pieces together into a masterpiece of bizzare revisionism.

[Colonello Buendia]

Mao had some interesting ideas in the early years of rule however like the five year plans his early economic system failed. It is well known that Mao so Krushchev and Tito's vehement anti-stalinism as dangerous revisionism so to be a trotskyist and Maoist is a bit weird. That's not to say that an appreciation of certain Trotskyist ideas would be all together harmful to Maoists.

[Die Neue Zeit]

At any rate, I think this conversation needs to have a better understanding of what "uphold" means. I "uphold" Trotsky as a Bolshevik leader and a revolutionary communist. I also disagree with a lot of what he said. So I uphold him as a revolutionary but not as a theorist. In that sense, I also uphold Vo Ngoyen Giap, Guevara, the Panthers, and numerous others who I don't uphold in a theoretical sense.

Since you've made this clarification, here I go:

Who I uphold as revolutionary Marxists (revolutionary politics and anti-reductionist, anti-revisionist, and anti-sectarian theory)

Lenin
Luxemburg
Connolly

Who I uphold as ordinary Marxist theorists (not much revolutionary politics, and theoretical contributions are prone to reductionism, revisionism, and/or sectarianism)

Kautsky (pre-renegade)
Bordiga
Gramsci
Bukharin (pre-NEP)

Who I uphold as ordinary Marxist revolutionaries (distinct from revolutionary Marxists, since theoretical contributions are prone to reductionism, revisionism, and/or sectarianism, even if wholly within Marxism)

Trotsky

Who I uphold as ordinary semi-Marxist revolutionaries (theoretical contributions are grossly revisionist to say the least, some of which are outside the scope of Marxism)

Ho Chi Minh (proper "national-democratic"/Menshevik revolution without Menshevik cowardice)
Mao

Who I uphold as merely good war leaders who were semi-Marxists at best

"Comrade" Stalin (after his one-month cowardly hiatus)

Who was NOT a Marxist at all

Enver Hoxha :D

[Dros]

Anyways...It is quite common for Maoist organizations (RCP-USA, especially,) to be accused of being crypto Trotskist. Now, I can see more than a little bit of legitimacy to these accusations, judging by this little cross-section of international Maoists.

Actually, the two people in this thread who actually associate themselves with the RCP have been the two people who have repeatedly and explicitly stated that they do not uphold Trotsky. So, no. The RCP is in no way at all ever crypto-Trot.

Saying that I have some respect for Trotsky as an individual who dedicated his life to (his own misconstrued version) of revolution absolutely does not make me a Trotskyist.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Except that "Comrades" Stalin and Bukharin revised Lenin's revolutionary democracy to include actual bourgeoisie. :glare:



This reminded me so long ago of some absurd "Jews for Jesus" missionary campaign. :lol:

What? This is the first time I've ever seen someone accuse Stalin of courting bourgeoisie. If you look at historical records, he targeted conspiring kulaks and counterrevolutionaries, never workers. The Western media likes to play up an unfounded number of deaths to make Leninism sound more intolerable than fascism, but it's not true.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Why haven't you joined the Hoxhaists user group yet? :confused:


Well, um, thanks for calling me out....

You're welcome. ;)

[Seriously, when I was a Marxist-Leninist, I was of the "four classics" variety for the simple reason that Hoxha led, at best, a glorified version of the Paris Commune.]

[Crest]

That would include me.

[chegitz guevara]

My point was, how can you expect to "uphold" contadictory figures with Contradictory aims,motivations and theories (not to mention a dislike for each other.). Some of these ideologies have enough contradictions as it is; I can only imagine what kind of jumbled mess you get from butchering them, and trying to force pieces together into a masterpiece of bizzare revisionism.

The mistake you seem to make is in thinking that if we agree to one aspect of a comrade's politics, we must agree to all of it. I can agree that Mao was a very important revolutionary communist, in that he led the world's most populous nation to overthrow imperialism and start building socialism. His internationalism and determination should be an inspiration to all comrades. As well, his flexibility in understanding and demonstrating that the peasantry could not only be a revolutionary force, but a revolutionary force <i>in their own right</i> was a significant advance.

On the other hand, Mao's belief that socialism could be built in one country, his faith in Comrade Stalin, his claim that a country could flop to capitalism when the leader change, his cozying up to American imperialism, are all things I disagree with.

From Trotsky we get the theory of permanent revolution, an understanding of what fascism is, internationalism, and an understanding of the degeneration of the USSR. But we also get some nasty sectarianism and a misunderstanding of Leninism (which we also get from Mao, Stalin, etc).

Both comrades advanced the struggle, and that's why I can uphold both, while also disagree with aspects of both.

[bezdomni]

Mao's belief that socialism could be built in one country

Read: Adherence to Marxism-Leninism.


his faith in Comrade Stalin

Read: Materialist analysis of U.S.S.R. under Stalin's leadership.


his claim that a country could flop to capitalism when the leader change

Read: Blatant lie.


his cozying up to American imperialism

Read: Another blatant lie.

I hope that clears this up.

[RHIZOMES]

Pigmerikan Mao:


RNK


What the fuck is with all these Maoists who are hot for Leon? Is 21st century Maoism so bankrupt, that an ideological merger is the only solution?

Sheesh, and to think that in the declaration of the RIM (page 14), the RIM slandered ML parties opposed to them, by accusing the "Dogmatic" PPSH and like-minded parties of being closet Trots.:rolleyes:

Well Jacob, I guess you got your answer here. Thanks for exposing this very...unsettling revelation.


So to summarize this thread...

1. Many modern Maoists (he he; tongue twister) uphold Trotsky, for unknown and erroneous reasons. Jake, if you want a picture of an "un-orthodox Maoist", that is the epitome right there.

2. These same Maoists also uphold the the general juvenile-left tradition of "open-mindeness" and non-conformity that leads to the creation of mish-mash, hybrid paradox ideologies, devoid of context, with conflicting content, rife with inherent contradictions, and altogether slightly more useless than the parent ideologies that they cannibalized.

RNK, seems to be the most ridiculous perpetrator of this. RNK, you uphold Stalin, Trotsky and Mao? Trying to cover all the bases simultaneously, eh? :rolleyes: Why don't you throw in a few more names: Buhkarin,Zinoviev, Deng, Kim il sung, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Luxembourg, Kautsky... I mean, obviously ideological content (and the need to actually explore and committ to any of these ideological lines,) is completely un-necesary to you, so fuck it, throw in more names! Hitler,Churchill, Bush (Sr and Jr), Obama, Mussolini, Thatcher, Clinton (Hillary and Bill), Ghandi, Dalia lama, Franco, Osama Bin Ladin, Milosevich, Huissen....

"Stalin,Trotsky and Mao"...Stop trying to be all things to all people. Oh wait, you do seem to have decided on a concrete ideological line after all:



Well congrats on being yet another naive Trotskyist.

Anyways...It is quite common for Maoist organizations (RCP-USA, especially,) to be accused of being crypto Trotskist. Now, I can see more than a little bit of legitimacy to these accusations, judging by this little cross-section of international Maoists.

I think Trotsky had some good analysis on things when he wasn't talking about Stalin.


On the other hand, Mao's belief that socialism could be built in one countryq

The thing Trots never seem to understand is that Stalin and Mao would've rather had global socialism. HOWEVER, Stalin and Mao saw that the world wasn't going to turn 100&#37; communist anytime soon from the evidence, and the most they could do is try to socialize their OWN country and encourage socialist and communist movements around the world. Seriously, would you have rather had a capitalist Russia and China, all because the rest of the world wasn't going along with Marxism?


his claim that a country could flop to capitalism when the leader change

You mischaracterize what Mao thought. He thought basically: Even after socialism has taken hold, there are still capitalist roaders in the party (Proven true by Deng Xiaopeng) and the class struggle still occurs after the revolution has taken hold (Again, proven true by Deng Xiaopeng, the bourgeoisie took hold of the country again).