Mass Line Vs. Transitional Method [Archive]

Rawthentic

22nd August 2008, 16:30

Rosa, I think you are mistake when it comes to the mass line, and Maoism, in general.

The mass line, can be encapsulated by Mao like this "from the masses, to the masses."

What does that mean? Basically that communists should go out amongst the masses, teach them, learn from them, gather their ideas, and with the fusion of that with our politics, create political programs that can then be taken back to the masses to act upon. After, there is summation, criticism, and more learning, and the process starts again. The way I put it is rather schematic, but the process if much more dynamic than how I make it out to be.

This method is diametrically opposed to "dictating" to the masses. That is a commandist method that does not respect the will or ideas of the people themselves, and results in alienation from them. The mass line exists (and it is a principle to maoists) to learn from the people (desires, ideas, hopes, politics) which are very scattered and not systematic. What communists do, after learning this, is synthesize them into coherent political programs that respond to those ideas from the masses, and hope to lead them in a correct, revolutionary path.

ShineThePath

22nd August 2008, 16:35

Dros, please don't question beg. We should be modest here and discuss things honestly, being snide is by no way to go about things.

I want to get into this more, I have some definite opinions here, but I would first ask Rosa this simple question.

Ascertain the 'will' to what? Who's 'will' are we ascertaining? How does this general will constitute itself?

Rosa Lichtenstein

22nd August 2008, 17:10

Raw:

Rosa, I think you are mistake when it comes to the mass line, and Maoism, in general.

The mass line, can be encapsulated by Mao like this "from the masses, to the masses."

What does that mean? Basically that communists should go out amongst the masses, teach them, learn from them, gather their ideas, and with the fusion of that with our politics, create political programs that can then be taken back to the masses to act upon. After, there is summation, criticism, and more learning, and the process starts again. The way I put it is rather schematic, but the process if much more dynamic than how I make it out to be.

Well, then, it is entirely inaccurate to describe it as 'from the masses'. What you mean is that it 'from some of the masses -- but, ahem, we have no evidence to back this up, so you will have to just take our word for it...'.

So, the general suspicion that this ends up dictating to the masses is not contradictied by any evidence.

Rosa Lichtenstein

22nd August 2008, 17:12

Dros:

Rosa, have you actually read any Mao?

Enough to convince we that it was a bad idea to read any more.

Dros

22nd August 2008, 17:56

Dros, please don't question beg. We should be modest here and discuss things honestly, being snide is by no way to go about things.

It's not about being snide. It's about being honest. Lots of people here make statements that they are completely unqualified to make. It's important to understand on what basis someone makes a claim and it is absolutely pertinent and relevant to the conversation. Like Mao said, "No investigation, no right to speak." I'm trying to figure out what kind of investigation people here have done because it doesn't sound like Rosa or Nobama have actually done any.

Rosa Lichtenstein

22nd August 2008, 18:08

Dros:

Like Mao said, "No investigation, no right to speak." I'm trying to figure out what kind of investigation people here have done because it doesn't sound like Rosa or Nobama have actually done any.

But, that did not stop Mao from pontificating about everything in the entire universe, and for all of time, changing as a result of its 'internal contradictions'.

And, I'd like to see the primary data and statistical analysis that is alleged to have been behind the formation of the 'mass line'.

Until then, I think we would be right to treat it (the 'mass line') with the same amount of suspicion that we regard Mao's semi-divine knowledge of the entire universe since the Big Bang.:lol:

Rawthentic

22nd August 2008, 18:47

Well, then, it is entirely inaccurate to describe it as 'from the masses'. What you mean is that it 'from some of the masses -- but, ahem, we have no evidence to back this up, so you will have to just take our word for it...'.

So, the general suspicion that this ends up dictating to the masses is not contradictied by any evidence.
Yeah from some of the masses, since when has every single oppressed individual been a part of a revolutionary movement in any given time? Never.

No evidence? lol, what do you think was used by the CCP during the chinese revolution, or by our Indian, Nepali, and Filipino comrades? Hell, the Black Panthers used this method to success as well.

I think you will have to provide evidence to show how it has turned out to "dictate" to the masses, instead of patient persuasion and concrete study of concrete investigations (crucial elements of the mass line).

Rosa Lichtenstein

22nd August 2008, 20:21

Raw:

Yeah from some of the masses, since when has every single oppressed individual been a part of a revolutionary movement in any given time? Never.

So, the word 'masses' is being used ironically, then?

No evidence? lol, what do you think was used by the CCP during the chinese revolution, or by our Indian, Nepali, and Filipino comrades? Hell, the Black Panthers used this method to success as well.

In that case, I was right -- you have no evidence.

I think you will have to provide evidence to show how it has turned out to "dictate" to the masses, instead of patient persuasion and concrete study of concrete investigations (crucial elements of the mass line).

Well, we have already established it wasn't 'from the masses', so this 'non-mass line' must therefore have been imposed on the masses --, or, in other words, dictated to them.

Rawthentic

22nd August 2008, 21:17

So, the word 'masses' is being used ironically, then?
No. Since when, in any given revolutionary (or non revolutionary) time, do 100% of the masses participate? What happens is, there is an advanced section of the masses, that usually push forward the intermediate, and the intermediate the backward.

In that case, I was right -- you have no evidence.
Of course I have evidence. They are (or were in china's case), real, living revolutions. The correct method that these maoist parties used in building their support amongst the people was the mass line. If this isnt true, then HOW DID THEY establish their support, and how did they not use the mass line?

Well, we have already established it wasn't 'from the masses', so this 'non-mass line' must therefore have been imposed on the masses --, or, in other words, dictated to them.
No, you incorrectly assumed that. Of course it is from the masses, but not imposed or dictated. It goes against what the mass line is all about : patient persuasion and explanation of any certain campaign to attempt to convince the masses to participate, rather than pointing a gun at them or beating them if they do not obey. The Ten Point Platform that the Black Panthers used amongst the black community in the 1960s was a result of using the mass line method (this is how they learned the deeper conditions of the people they led in struggle).

Like I said, the mass line is not "dictated" to the masses, it is the basic methodology by which we relate to them, learn from them, respect them, and lead them in struggle. If you still think that, then prove how.

Rosa Lichtenstein

22nd August 2008, 21:48

Raw:

No. Since when, in any given revolutionary (or non revolutionary) time, do 100% of the masses participate? What happens is, there is an advanced section of the masses, that usually push forward the intermediate, and the intermediate the backward.

So, and once more, the word 'masses' is being used ironically, as I suspected -- a bit like the US ruling-class use the words 'democracy' and 'freedom'.

Of course I have evidence. They are (or were in china's case), real, living revolutions. The correct method that these maoist parties used in building their support amongst the people was the mass line. If this isnt true, then HOW DID THEY establish their support, and how did they not use the mass line?

Ok, then, as I said to Dros:

And, I'd like to see the primary data and statistical analysis that is alleged to have been behind the formation of the 'mass line'.

Until then, I think we would be right to treat it (the 'mass line') with the same amount of suspicion that we regard Mao's semi-divine knowledge of the entire universe since the Big Bang.

So, let's see the primary data that records the hundreds of millions of interviews with a large proportion of the Chinese 'masses' carried out by party stalwarts from the 1940s through to the 1960s, and the statistical analyses carried out on this data by the CCP.

No rush, since I rather suspect it might take you several months, if not years, to post it here...:rolleyes:

No, you incorrectly assumed that. Of course it is from the masses, but not imposed or dictated. It goes against what the mass line is all about : patient persuasion and explanation of any certain campaign to attempt to convince the masses to participate, rather than pointing a gun at them or beating them if they do not obey. The Ten Point Platform that the Black Panthers used amongst the black community in the 1960s was a result of using the mass line method (this is how they learned the deeper conditions of the people they led in struggle).

Ok, I will be more than happy to withdraw my impertinent allegations just as soon as you post copies of the hundreds of millions of data sheets out of which the CCP cobbled-together the 'mass line'.

Until then, shall we agree to call it the 'massive exaggeration line'?:lol:

Like I said, the mass line is not "dictated" to the masses, it is the basic methodology by which we relate to them, learn from them, respect them, and lead them in struggle. If you still think that, then prove how.

And indeed I will heartily agree with you when the said data is available for us all to inspect.:)

Of course, if it isn't forthcoming, then the suspicion will be that you, too, have been sold a bill of goods by the CCP, who, alas, seem to have dictated this line to you as well, and not just the down-trodden Chinese 'masses'.:(

Rawthentic

22nd August 2008, 22:28

So, and once more, the word 'masses' is being used ironically, as I suspected -- a bit like the US ruling-class use the words 'democracy' and 'freedom'.
You're an odd one. The masses means the masses. That is that.

So, let's see the primary data that records the hundreds of millions of interviews with a large proportion of the Chinese 'masses' carried out by party stalwarts from the 1940s through to the 1960s, and the statistical analyses carried out on this data by the CCP.

No rush, since I rather suspect it might take you several months, if not years, to post it here...http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif
how the heck does one post statistical data on how the mass line was used in these revolutions? How is that even possible? Have you ever read anything on the chinese revolutions?

Everytime there was a campaign that the CCP was putting forward, the leaders and cadres always took the time to sit down and patiently explain the reasons behind this and the need to take it up. They asked for their opinions as well. This is a part of the mass line. Ever read the book Fanshen? How about Red Star Over China? They show how this mass line method is used effectively.

Ok, I will be more than happy to withdraw my impertinent allegations just as soon as you post copies of the hundreds of millions of data sheets out of which the CCP cobbled-together the 'mass line'.

Until then, shall we agree to call it the 'massive exaggeration line'?
I dont get what you want. You want data as to how the mass line was used? Wtf?

Maybe clear up what you want, cuz you dont make any sense.

Of course, if it isn't forthcoming, then the suspicion will be that you, too, have been sold a bill of goods by the CCP, who, alas, seem to have dictated this line to you as well, and not just the down-trodden Chinese 'masses'
Really?

lol, btw, why did you never respond to that thread we where debating on in the Learning forum? You said you would reply but never did.

Winter

22nd August 2008, 22:28

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/ch11.htm

There's some quotes from Mao on the Mass Line if you're interested in learning more, Rosa. ;)

Rosa Lichtenstein

22nd August 2008, 23:12

WD, thanks, and I'd take you up on it if it were indeed the 'mass line' and not the 'massaged line'.

Rosa Lichtenstein

22nd August 2008, 23:24

Raw:

The masses means the masses. That is that.

To you 'masses' seems to mean 'not the masses', so why was this document not called the 'non-mass line', then?

how the heck does one post statistical data on how the mass line was used in these revolutions? How is that even possible? Have you ever read anything on the chinese revolutions?

That's your problem, mate. Either post it or withdraw the phrase 'mass line' -- simple as that.

Everytime there was a campaign that the CCP was putting forward, the leaders and cadres always took the time to sit down and patiently explain the reasons behind this and the need to take it up. They asked for their opinions as well. This is a part of the mass line. Ever read the book Fanshen? How about Red Star Over China? They show how this mass line method is used effectively.

So, it wasn't the 'mass line' it was more like the 'convince the masses to obey, but don't put that in the title line'.

I dont get what you want. You want data as to how the mass line was used? Wtf?

Maybe clear up what you want, cuz you dont make any sense.

I take this as your admission that you do not have the evidence, then?

So, you have been sold a bill of goods.

Really?

Until you post the evidence, then yes 'really!"

lol, btw, why did you never respond to that thread we where debating on in the Learning forum? You said you would reply but never did.

I was at that time involved in a long debate with Gilhyle, and could not be bothered to spare the time.

At the moment I am putting the finishing touches to an 80,000+ word essay demolishing a few more dialectical daydreams.

So, if I can spare the time, I might return to that debate in a month or so -- but then again maybe not since I will by then be in the middle of finishing a 70,000 word essay on dialectics and science -- called 'the massacre of dialectics line'.:)

Rawthentic

23rd August 2008, 03:51

To you 'masses' seems to mean 'not the masses', so why was this document not called the 'non-mass line', then?
This makes no sense either. To the masses means we take communism to the masses. It is called the mass line. Period.

That's your problem, mate. Either post it or withdraw the phrase 'mass line' -- simple as that.
I can as easily ask you to post stats as to how it was NOT used. It simply is not fair. You use this "statistical" thing as an excuse for your real lack of understanding on the meaning of the term. Why dont we get into what it really means, instead of going around it?

So, it wasn't the 'mass line' it was more like the 'convince the masses to obey, but don't put that in the title line'.
The point is that communists are leaders are the people, "tribunes of the people" as Lenin put it. So, there are two methods of leadership. One is, the mass line, by which the ideas of the masses are synthesized into political programs by which the masses voluntarily take up. The other is called commandism, a wrong method by which campaigns are not explained to the masses and are expected to participate as such, and even the use of slander or force to push the masses to participate. Which one do you agree with? Maoists hold the mass line as principle, not simply as tactic.

I take this as your admission that you do not have the evidence, then?

So, you have been sold a bill of goods.
The whole freakin' chinese revolution is evidence of the use of mass line. The cultural revolution, the agrarian revolution, all the campaigns dealt with during this great process, this is the evidence. There is no better evidence than an actual revolution. Prove that the mass line was NOT used during the Revolution. You won't.

I was at that time involved in a long debate with Gilhyle, and could not be bothered to spare the time.

At the moment I am putting the finishing touches to an 80,000+ word essay demolishing a few more dialectical daydreams.

So, if I can spare the time, I might return to that debate in a month or so -- but then again maybe not since I will by then be in the middle of finishing a 70,000 word essay on dialectics and science -- called 'the massacre of dialectics line'.
Excuses. Admit that you were taken to school.

Dros

23rd August 2008, 06:03

Rawthinc, if I may offer a word of advice: don't bother.

I've tried to engage Rosa several times. She usually devolves into petty insulting and screaming and whining and she rarely makes even an effort to back up her claims. I've had better conversations with fifth graders...

Winter

23rd August 2008, 07:01

wd, thanks, and i'd take you up on it if it were indeed the 'mass line' and not the 'massaged line'.

lol what

Vendetta

23rd August 2008, 07:13

I'm not familiar with the mass line or transitional method. What are they?

Winter

23rd August 2008, 07:28

Cool quote I came across while reading Mao:

The line we adopted in this work was the mass line, that is, the suppression of counter-revolution by the people themselves. Of course, even with the adoption of this line, mistakes will still occur in our work, but they will be fewer and easier to correct. The masses have gained experience through this struggle. From what was done correctly they learned how things should be done. From what was done wrong they learned useful lessons as to why mistakes were made.

The greatest example of this is the great proletariat cultural revolution. The mass line actively motivated the masses ( alot of people, just to clear that up, Rosa :D ) to gain interest in Marxism so they can actively work for their own best interests with the help and leadership of the party.

This is from "The Battle for China's Past" by Mobo Gao:

Another aspect of the cultural revolution that has so far been largely neglected by western academices is the multiplication of semi-official, unofficial and underground cultural activities during these da minzhu ( great democracy ) years. According to one estimate, for instance, more that 10,000 different newspapers and pamphlets were published during the cultural revolutoon. There were more that 900 publications in Beijing alone. According to Chen, even Mao paid attention to these publications. Western academics have made and still do make use of the so-called Red Guard publications to assess China, the CCP, and the cultural revolution. There was unprecedented freedom of association and freedom of expression, though in non-institutionalized ways.

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd August 2008, 07:31

Raw:

To the masses means we take communism to the masses. It is called the mass line. Period.

Then the 'mass line' is misnamed, and all that time asking 'the masses' what they think was a waste of time.

Moreover, when you said this:

The mass line, can be encapsulated by Mao like this "from the masses, to the masses."

you should have said this:

"not from the masses, just to the masses"

in which case, it should be called 'the minority line'.

I can as easily ask you to post stats as to how it was NOT used. It simply is not fair. You use this "statistical" thing as an excuse for your real lack of understanding on the meaning of the term. Why dont we get into what it really means, instead of going around it?

But, you misled me about what it means. Had you been honest, I would not have asked for evidence, I would instead have just called it plain and simple 'substitutionism'.

The point is that communists are leaders are the people, "tribunes of the people" as Lenin put it. So, there are two methods of leadership. One is, the mass line, by which the ideas of the masses are synthesized into political programs by which the masses voluntarily take up. The other is called commandism, a wrong method by which campaigns are not explained to the masses and are expected to participate as such, and even the use of slander or force to push the masses to participate. Which one do you agree with? Maoists hold the mass line as principle, not simply as tactic.

So stop calling it the 'mass line', which it isn't. It's 'what we think is best for you ignorant schmucks whether you like it or not line'.

The whole freakin' chinese revolution is evidence of the use of mass line. The cultural revolution, the agrarian revolution, all the campaigns dealt with during this great process, this is the evidence. There is no better evidence than an actual revolution. Prove that the mass line was NOT used during the Revolution. You won't.

I have never questioned whether the 'impose this on the masses line' was used in the revolution and after -- I am just calling into question the name you lot have been sold.

So, once more: you naive Maoists have been sold a bill of goods, just like 'the masses' were sold too.

Admit that you were taken to school.

Oh dear, you've got me there! Yes, I admit my guilty secret, just no more third degree...http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/2.gif

One small point: no one tried to sell me 'the mass line' at school, or call the education I received by that name.

Was that what ruined your education, by any chance?

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd August 2008, 07:36

Dros:

Rawthinc, if I may offer a word of advice: don't bother.

I've tried to engage Rosa several times. She usually devolves into petty insulting and screaming and whining and she rarely makes even an effort to back up her claims. I've had better conversations with fifth graders...

But, I am not making any claims; all I am asking is that Raw provide evidence that the masses were involved here, otherwise he/you lot should withdraw the name 'mass line', and perhaps call it the 'massaged line' instead.

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd August 2008, 07:39

WD:

lol what

Good question, but if you ask it, Dros will just accuse you of being childish.http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/eusa_naughty.gif

Only those who agree with him are 'mature'.http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/banana.gif

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd August 2008, 07:40

WD, thanks for those quotations, but they just confirm that the 'mass line' was misnamed.

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd August 2008, 07:41

RSOA (now Vendetta):

I'm not familiar with the mass line or transitional method. What are they?

You see, not even you were asked!

Winter

23rd August 2008, 07:53

WD, thanks for those quotations, but they just confirm that the 'mass line' was misnamed.

masses
Noun, pl
1. the masses ordinary people as a group
2. masses of Informal, chiefly Brit a great number or quantity of: masses of food

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd August 2008, 07:56

Yes, as I said: misnamed.

ShineThePath

23rd August 2008, 08:31

For all the talk about "mysticism" Rosa, you've engaged yourself in a defense of metaphysics. In a previous post you spoke about the difference of Mass Line was that Mass Line methodology 'imposes' its vision on people, whereas the Trotskyist tradition 'acertains their will.'

Lets begin first with this idea of 'acertaining will.' This concept has to be connected to a particular methodology that comes from the tradition of the Enlightenment and Humanism, and we have to oppose this to to the Marxist conception of coming to class consciousness.

Will, Drive, etc. are purely ontological categories. Though, Rosa claims to hold onto a logical-analytic approach, she essentially falls back on this metaphysical notions.

'Will' can be constituted materially, but unfortunately without a materialist dialectical approach this can't be understood.

First, there is no 'will' of people, this a Bourgeois concept known as 'general will.' General will is developed, created, and constituted by the State and civil society, it also appears in its developed form as cultural hegemony and Ideology.

But what are we really talking about? We're speaking about ideas in the heads of people, and how they manifest themselves in social relations. We're dealing with the consciousness of the masses. The Mass Line takes this as its point of rupture in methodology, it demands that revolutionaries not merely declare themselves the 'tribune of the people,' but raise consciousness of the people.

Understanding the thoughts of the masses, their demands, their growth, their retardation, is the first part of Mass Line. Concrete investigation. Of course, this process includes the Vanguard being a Vanguard, by sythesizing this scattered information with the revolutionary theory of Marxism in order to put forward a line. This is a processual undertaking, investigation & synthesizing, creating what Lenin called 'plans of action,' and then summing up the experiences.

Rinse and repeat.

This is part of the scientific method of developing knowledge altogether.

Let us contrast this to the Transitional Program of Trotsky. While at face value there maybe similarities, in fact there is a real line difference. Transitional Program sees reform and immediate demands as stages toward the development of consciousness, or stages in as Rosa put it before, 'ascertaining will.'

But there is a little bit more to this. Transitional Program as practiced by most Trotskyists and put forward by Trotsky is essentially a line of letting the masses learn from their negative experiences, from the experience of being defeated.

The problem here is 1) the attitude toward the masses and their ability to grapple with politics & 2) the mechanical understanding that capitalism faces insourmountable conditions which it can't change, but in fact capitalism has shown itself the ability to revolutionize itself rather easily.

Just my few cents.

ShineThePath

23rd August 2008, 08:34

I am not sure how Mass Line is misnamed? It is rather simple, its actually class analysis, but not just a sociological analysis...but an analysis of the trends of thought and demands of people.

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd August 2008, 09:57

STheP (in Righteous Indignation Pose):

For all the talk about "mysticism" Rosa, you've engaged yourself in a defense of metaphysics. In a previous post you spoke about the difference of Mass Line was that Mass Line methodology 'imposes' its vision on people, whereas the Trotskyist tradition 'acertains their will.'

This is not all that difficult, so one would have expected even you to be able to follow it.

To recap: I raised a query about the so-called 'mass line' and was told:

The mass line, can be encapsulated by Mao like this "from the masses, to the masses."

But, when I asked for the original evidence that this was indeed 'from the masses', the Maoists who attempted to reply to me suddenly grew defensive, and in your case, began to attack me (presumably, because I was not prepared to accept the word of the semi-divine CCP, and other assorted Maoist gangs, that it was indeed 'from the masses').

The bottom line is that it now turns out that it was not 'from the masses' after all, and the title 'mass line' is at best ironic, as ironic perhaps as the word 'democracy' is when the US ruling-class or its ideologues use it.

But you counter:

In a previous post you spoke about the difference of Mass Line was that Mass Line methodology 'imposes' its vision on people, whereas the Trotskyist tradition 'acertains their will.'

This is of course a lie, motivated no doubt by the fact that I have rumbled this Maoist fabrication. I have never expressd the view you attribute to me (and I note you did not post a link to where you think you saw me say it), but if ever I were to pass an opinion on Trotskyism in this regard, I would point a similar finger and accuse fellow Trotskyists of ignoring the 'masses', just as you Maoist moaners do. The only thing in our favour is that we do not produce overblown documents claiming to be the 'mass line' when the masses have been nowhere near it.

Lets begin first with this idea of 'acertaining will.' This concept has to be connected to a particular methodology that comes from the tradition of the Enlightenment and Humanism, and we have to oppose this to to the Marxist conception of coming to class consciousness.

Will, Drive, etc. are purely ontological categories. Though, Rosa claims to hold onto a logical-analytic approach, she essentially falls back on this metaphysical notions.

'Will' can be constituted materially, but unfortunately without a materialist dialectical approach this can't be understood.

First, there is no 'will' of people, this a Bourgeois concept known as 'general will.' General will is developed, created, and constituted by the State and civil society, it also appears in its developed form as cultural hegemony and Ideology.

But what are we really talking about? We're speaking about ideas in the heads of people, and how they manifest themselves in social relations. We're dealing with the consciousness of the masses. The Mass Line takes this as its point of rupture in methodology, it demands that revolutionaries not merely declare themselves the 'tribune of the people,' but raise consciousness of the people.

Understanding the thoughts of the masses, their demands, their growth, their retardation, is the first part of Mass Line. Concrete investigation. Of course, this process includes the Vanguard being a Vanguard, by sythesizing this scattered information with the revolutionary theory of Marxism in order to put forward a line. This is a processual undertaking, investigation & synthesizing, creating what Lenin called 'plans of action,' and then summing up the experiences.

Rinse and repeat.

This is part of the scientific method of developing knowledge altogether.

Let us contrast this to the Transitional Program of Trotsky. While at face value there maybe similarities, in fact there is a real line difference. Transitional Program sees reform and immediate demands as stages toward the development of consciousness, or stages in as Rosa put it before, 'ascertaining will.'

But there is a little bit more to this. Transitional Program as practiced by most Trotskyists and put forward by Trotsky is essentially a line of letting the masses learn from their negative experiences, from the experience of being defeated.

The problem here is 1) the attitude toward the masses and their ability to grapple with politics & 2) the mechanical understanding that capitalism faces insourmountable conditions which it can't change, but in fact capitalism has shown itself the ability to revolutionize itself rather easily.

Just my few cents.

Less thas two cents in fact, since this has nothing to do with my complaint. [And I do not accept the Transitional Program either, so that was a waste of breath, too!]

Let me repeat -- and I am typing this a little more slowly so that even you can follow it --, I was told that the 'mass line' was 'from the masses to the masses'. I asked for the evidence that proved that this was indeed 'from the mases'. This has yet to be produced.

In that case, and until it is produced, the only conclusion is that the 'mass line' is in fact only 'to the masses', and should be re-named accordingly: 'not from the mass, but to the mass line'.

If you are going to be substitutionists, do it openly, and be proud of it.

Finally, those Maoists here and elsewhere who fell for the 'from the masses...' lie were indeed sold a bill of goods.

It's that simple.

In fact, they should be grateful to me for shining a light here, shouldn't they?

Now, DarkenThePath, do you need that explaining again?

avantgarde

23rd August 2008, 10:14

Trotsky’s International was based on his famous Transitional Programme. One of the sources, probably the main source of Trotskyite sectarianism after the Second World War, may be attributed to this programme. This programme is based on the concept of Transitional Demands.

What are transitional demands? It seems neither fish or fowl. Trotskyism is the replacement of the idea of minimum and maximum demands with the idea of transitional demands. Trotsky came to the conclusion that since we were living in a transitional period from capitalism to socialism what was needed was a system of transitional demands. In his view minimum demands were outdated. Minimum demands are those which can be achieved from within the framework of capitalism.

Maximum demands can only be attained by overthrowing capitalism. Trotsky claimed that transitional demands are neither minimum nor maximum demands. We are back to 1918 when in the Bolshevik struggle for peace Trotsky argued the line: neither war nor peace. This brings to mind Mavrakis’ reference to Trotsky’s incapacity when it comes to concrete thinking. Neither war nor peace, neither minimum nor maximum demands, either socialism in one country or world revolution; we are dealing with the same anti-dialectical logical method. In truth when we look at the transitional demands in this programme, most of them are basically maximum demands dressed up as ‘transitional’ demands. They are demands which can only be attained in a revolutionary situation.

This means that most Trotskyite groups have spent from 1938 onwards fighting for revolutionary demands in a non-revolutionary situation, at least in the advanced capitalist countries. This explains one of the reasons why orthodox Trotskyism is sectarianism and is unable to connect itself to the masses. Between minimum demands and maximum demands there is a revolutionary leap from one to the other, not a system of transitional demands. The concept of the revolutionary leap is absent from the Transitional Programme, as it is from the programme of the revisionist circles. In the programme of the revisionist circles there is no such thing as a dialectical leap, a revolutionary situation.

Trotsky asserted in his Transitional Programme that ‘The present crisis in human culture is the crisis in the proletarian leadership. The advanced workers, united in the Fourth International show their class the way out of the crisis’. What did Trotsky mean by the crisis of revolutionary leadership? This crisis could not refer to the absence of communist parties. Trotsky must have been referring to the policies being pursued by these parties, which he disagreed with. But the Trotskyite critique of the Comintern is pseudo-left in nature. Regardless of the weaknesses of the Comintern, these parties did not desert the working in the period of Stalin. Their loyalty to the Soviet Union was an expression of their loyalty to the working class and the revolution.

ShineThePath

23rd August 2008, 10:56

Two points

*I just want to say this whole way in which Rosa speaks to people is disgusting and immature (especially for someone who has many years on people on this Board). This sort of hostility and silly indignation is revealing of a certain method and pyschology.

*Rosa has actively went back and re-edited her passage where she speaks of "ascertaining the will" of workers juxtaposed to Mass Line. This is unsettingly dishonest and I think people should be aware of this, for now she claims she never wrote it at all. She opportunistically has taken advantage of the fact that I did not directly quote her, but fortunately a few comrades have paid attention and have seen Rosa write this (Rawthentic).

Toward matters of discussion at hand. Rosa actually has not even read a word I have seriously said or should would have understood what is meant by Mass Line. This is a methodology of leadership toward developing political line and raising consciousness of people, it isn't the political line itself.

What is the distinction. Mass Line is a method in accordance to the Marxist theory of knowledge, from the continual process of refinement of our thought through summation of our practices and investigations amongst people. It is also a perspective on the role of the masses as being a part of this struggle and to struggle with them to carry their existing mode of consciousness to that of a Communist perspective.

This opposed to tapping into people and 'activating' them, as if there is an instinctive quality to this, opposed to treating the people's as tabula rasas' to be etched into. These are errors of what we call Tailism and Commandism.

We're also opposed to 'ascertaing their will':)

Our political line is however not the Mass Line. What would emerge is just a populist and eclectic politics in command. We're Communists and are oriented towards the aim of Communism, the role of Mass Line is to organically link the praxis of Communists toward winning over people toward that line and building bases of support.

"From the Masses, To the Masses" is the correct formulation because rather than the simple dichotomy of bottom-up, top-down, horozontalism, and whatever other silly linear directionality, it acknowledges the infused interpentration of leadership with led, with students and teachers.

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd August 2008, 11:04

AG:

Maximum demands can only be attained by overthrowing capitalism. Trotsky claimed that transitional demands are neither minimum nor maximum demands. We are back to 1918 when in the Bolshevik struggle for peace Trotsky argued the line: neither war nor peace. This brings to mind Mavrakis’ reference to Trotsky’s incapacity when it comes to concrete thinking. Neither war nor peace, neither minimum nor maximum demands, either socialism in one country or world revolution; we are dealing with the same anti-dialectical logical method. In truth when we look at the transitional demands in this programme, most of them are basically maximum demands dressed up as ‘transitional’ demands. They are demands which can only be attained in a revolutionary situation.

Well, as I have shown in numerous threads in the Philosophy section, the famed 'dialectical method' can be, and has been used to prove anything that a particular comrades likes, and its opposite.

[Indeed, Trotskyist groups advance the same allegations about the 'abstract, anti-dialectical' method of Maoists, Stalinists, Libertarian Marxists and fellow Trotskyists. And I say that as a Trotskyist!]

There is in fact no way to determine if this wonderful 'method' has ever been used correctly since its theses are as clear as mud.

Now, I have no desire to defend the Transitional Programme, but atacking it with 'dialectics' is like attacking a dead sheep with a feather.

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd August 2008, 11:13

STheP:

*I just want to say this whole way in which Rosa speaks to people is disgusting and immature (especially for someone who has many years on people on this Board). This sort of hostility and silly indignation is revealing of a certain method and pyschology.

*Rosa has actively went back and re-edited her passage where she speaks of "ascertaining the will" of workers juxtaposed to Mass Line. This is unsettingly dishonest and I think people should be aware of this, for now she claims she never wrote it at all. She opportunistically has taken advantage of the fact that I did not directly quote her, but fortunately a few comrades have paid attention and have seen Rosa write this (Rawthentic).

With blatant liars like you around it is quite difficult to be civil.

What is your evidence that I re-edited that passage?

You have none since I re-edited nothing. You haven't even posted a link to it!

Toward matters of discussion at hand. Rosa actually has not even read a word I have seriously said or should would have understood what is meant by Mass Line. This is a methodology of leadership toward developing political line and raising consciousness of people, it isn't the political line itself.

What is the distinction. Mass Line is a method in accordance to the Marxist theory of knowledge, from the continual process of refinement of our thought through summation of our practices and investigations amongst people. It is also a perspective on the role of the masses as being a part of this struggle and to struggle with them to carry their existing mode of consciousness to that of a Communist perspective.

This opposed to tapping into people and 'activating' them, as if there is an instinctive quality to this, opposed to treating the people's as tabula rasas' to be etched into. These are errors of what we call Tailism and Commandism.

We're also opposed to 'ascertaing their will'

I did read it, and it was irrelevant, as I said, for the issue I raised was not whether it is right or wrong to 'ascertain the will of the masses' (nor yet whether this was in line with the 'Marxist theory of knowledge'), but whether you Maoists are right to call this policy 'from the masses to the masses'.

Since you have yet to produce the evidence that it is 'from the masses', but prefer to attack me for being impertinent enough to ask for the evidence backing this up, we can only assume that you are now trying to deflect attention from the simple fact that you have none.

"From the Masses, To the Masses" is the correct formulation because rather than the simple dichotomy of bottom-up, top-down, horozontalism, and whatever other silly linear directionality, it acknowledges the infused interpentration of leadership with led, with students and teachers.

Ok, so let's see the primary data on which this claim is based.

If you have none, at least admit it -- the smokescreen you lot are throwing up is fooling no one.

avantgarde

23rd August 2008, 11:15

AG:

Well, as I have shown in numerous threads in the Philosophy section, the famed 'dialectical method' can be, and has been used to prove anything that a particular comrades likes, and its opposite.

[Indeed, Trotskyist groups advance the same allegations about the 'abstract, anti-dialectical' method of Maoists, Stalinists, Libertarian Marxists and fellow Trotskyists. And I say that as a Trotskyist!]

There is in fact no way to determine if this wonderful 'method' has ever been used correctly since its theses are as clear as mud.

Now, I have no desire to defend the Transitional Programme, but atacking it with 'dialectics' is like attacking a dead sheep with a feather.
Sounds like your attacking a strawman of dialectics, not it's actual form nor it's method. I was simply pointing to the pseudo-leftism of Trotskyism, which at first glances seems 'left' and 'revolutionary' but is abstract, meaning it has no concrete basis, it's just meant to sound appealing. Furthermore it's relevant because Trotsky loves to skip over the revolutionary process and denies the anti-imperialist democrat nature of the revolution in the neo-colonial world. Trotsky's 'demands' were impractical because they demanded what was not possible in a given situation, thus why Trotsky thought the proletariat in Spain could beat fascism without help from the peasantry or liberal petitebourgeois.

Furthermore the utopianism of Trotsky has had a profoundly damaging effect of the revolutionary movement, mostly by not being practical in what can and can't be achieved in a stage and calling for 'everything that sounds cool at once'.

Trotskyism sounds good to someone who is little read in Marx and Lenin, but once you get more cynical and read more you realize it's opportunism and it's sectarianism.

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd August 2008, 11:19

AG:

Sounds like your attacking a strawman of dialectics, not it's actual form nor it's method. I was simply pointing to the pseudo-leftism of Trotskyism, which at first glances seems 'left' and 'revolutionary' but is abstract, meaning it has no concrete basis, it's just meant to sound appealing. Furthermore it's relevant because Trotsky loves to skip over the revolutionary process and denies the anti-imperialist democrat nature of the revolution in the neo-colonial world. Trotsky's 'demands' were impractical because they demanded what was not possible in a given situation, thus why Trotsky thought the proletariat in Spain could beat fascism without help from the peasantry or liberal petitebourgeois.

Well, nip over to the Philosophy section and try and take me on over this. Dozens of comrades have, and they are now licking their wounds.

Once more, I am not defending Trotsky's Transitional Programme -- how many more times to you need telling!? In fact, I reject it, as I have already said earlier in this thread.

Furthermore the utopianism of Trotsky has had a profoundly damaging effect of the revolutionary movement, mostly by not being practical in what can and can't be achieved in a stage and calling for 'everything that sounds cool at once'.

Trotskyism sounds good to someone who is little read in Marx and Lenin, but once you get more cynical and read more you realize it's opportunism and it's sectarianism.

I have lost count of the number of times I have heard this sort of stuff -- looks like you are attacking a straw-Trot here.

avantgarde

23rd August 2008, 11:29

AG:
I have lost count of the number of times I have heard this sort of stuff -- looks like you are attacking a straw-Trot here.
No, not really, seeing as Trotskyism is about a schizophrenic as your local committed resident, you have to go on Trotsky's original stances and actions, this is because 'Trotskyism' is different depending what sect and individual you talk to. 'Trotskyism' these days has gone beyond simple revisionism, it's morphed with many other ultraleftist traditions, namely Cliffite state-capitalist theory, and morphed into this horrid monstrosity of hysterical reaction at anything it perceives as 'authoritarian'.

So you Rosa maybe a bit more coherent, but that's an exception and not the rule. From general historical experience Trotskyism has been a counterrevolutionary trend.

ShineThePath

23rd August 2008, 11:31

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd August 2008, 12:25

AG:

No, not really, seeing as Trotskyism is about a schizophrenic as your local committed resident, you have to go on Trotsky's original stances and actions, this is because 'Trotskyism' is different depending what sect and individual you talk to. 'Trotskyism' these days has gone beyond simple revisionism, it's morphed with many other ultraleftist traditions, namely Cliffite state-capitalist theory, and morphed into this horrid monstrosity of hysterical reaction at anything it perceives as 'authoritarian'.

So you Rosa maybe a bit more coherent, but that's an exception and not the rule. From general historical experience Trotskyism has been a counterrevolutionary trend.

Same with Maoism then. We can all make allegations.

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd August 2008, 12:34

STheP:

Your demand of 'evidence' here is actually just a shallow shot. How am I to show you the 'evidence' of the actual practice of Maoists and how they relate to each other, its all there for the taking historically. The reality is that its a senseless demand.

If I were to allege this or that of Mao, sure as hell you would be demanding I produce the evidence or retract my accusations.

It's different, isn't it, when you demi-god Maoists say things; the rest of us un-believers are all supposed to nod sagely and agree.

So: either produce the evidence that this controversial Maoist document was indeed 'from the masses' or change its title to 'to the masses, and sod their opinion'.

And I note that you have failed to produce any evidence that I altered an earlier post of mine; you have still not even told us which post it was or provided a link to it.

All you say is this:

Secondly, there were a few people who saw you write that...I have no interest in making it up, you're using the fact I didn't quote you opportunistically. It is sad on your side.

Even so, you do not give their names, nor provide a link (as you know, the software here informs us when a member has altered a post, so we do not need to rely on the mysterious 'few people' who allegedly 'saw' me do it).

Provide the link so we can see who is lying. I dare you.

avantgarde

23rd August 2008, 13:15

RD:
It sought to dictate to the masses, not ascertain their will. Perfect example of substitutionism.

It sounds like you, like Trotsky, are just using the old demagogues' platform in place of theoretical correctness, furthermore you are placing an individualist line on the economic class basis of the struggle.

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd August 2008, 16:46

AG:

It sounds like you, like Trotsky, are just using the old demagogues' platform in place of theoretical correctness, furthermore you are placing an individualist line on the economic class basis of the struggle.

Where on earth did you get this load of b*llocks from?

Hit The North

23rd August 2008, 17:41

Your demand of 'evidence' here is actually just a shallow shot. How am I to show you the 'evidence' of the actual practice of Maoists and how they relate to each other, its all there for the taking historically. The reality is that its a senseless demand.

Secondly, there were a few people who saw you write that...I have no interest in making it up, you're using the fact I didn't quote you opportunistically. It is sad on your side.

Come on, STP, stop playing dumb. The issue isn't "Maoists and how they relate to each other," but how the Maoists relate to the masses.

Rosa's point is that we have plentiful documentary evidence in edicts and legislation of how the Party instructed the masses, but no documentary evidence of how the masses instructed the Party.

How did the leadership become aware of the desires of the masses? Where are the reports sent from party workers to the leadership detailing the results of their consultations with the masses in the town and countryside? Surely you're not suggesting that all this information was passed down the line by word of mouth!

I don't see how it is unreasonable for Rosa or any other neutral or skeptical observer to ask for evidence that the Party was in fact listening to the masses and not just dictating to them.

ShineThePath

23rd August 2008, 18:48

Come on, STP, stop playing dumb. The issue isn't "Maoists and how they relate to each other," but how the Maoists relate to the masses.

Rosa's point is that we have plentiful documentary evidence in edicts and legislation of how the Party instructed the masses, but no documentary evidence of how the masses instructed the Party.

How did the leadership become aware of the desires of the masses? Where are the reports sent from party workers to the leadership detailing the results of their consultations with the masses in the town and countryside? Surely you're not suggesting that all this information was passed down the line by word of mouth!

I don't see how it is unreasonable for Rosa or any other neutral or skeptical observer to ask for evidence that the Party was in fact listening to the masses and not just dictating to them.

This is simply a point of absurdity.

'Masses instructing the party' is not the point here. First, the masses are not contious homogenous grouping, we live in class society eh? The masses broadly have different interests and demands and thoughts, the point of Mass Line is to 'learn' from them in the sense of investigation and their experiences and to lead struggles. A part of this is developing a line to stategically develop your struggle around certain social classes and elements among the masses.

For example, I'll give a few small ones that are profoundly shaped by the Mass Line...Young Lords Pary, Black Panthers Party are just little encapsulate examples of attempts carry forward Mass Line practice that people can dig up.

Also on 'lowly' cadre reports to leadership, that was done! Ummm...I am not sure if you have been in party organizations, but this is the function of Democratic Centralism at its basic level, if this is not happening, you have a dysfunctional grouping.

Winter

23rd August 2008, 18:53

Learn from the masses, and then teach them

What did the party learn from the masses? That they wanted liberation from imperialist Japan and reactionary KMT forces.

What did the party teach them? How to achieve their goals.

One of the consequences of this mass line is that the ideas of class struggle have become part of human value, knowledge and truth. In other words, the discourse of class struggle legacy from the Mao era has made the farmer and other ordinary Chinese 'battlers' aware of their rights and the idea of equality.

ShineThePath

23rd August 2008, 18:58

Rosa, simply I don't have the know how to re-capture a previous page that has been altered and I am not a moderator of this site to make such examinations. But if its your word vs mine, that is absolutely fine with me. You've been more than a continous nasty bullyish troll on this board who's basic response is always a heap of abuse.

This isn't court, I am not going to give a preponderance of evidence

Vendetta

23rd August 2008, 19:17

You see, not even you were asked!

Asked about what?

Rawthentic

23rd August 2008, 20:13

Then the 'mass line' is misnamed, and all that time asking 'the masses' what they think was a waste of time.
Wow.

That is the point of the mass line: to engage in dialogue with the people, learn from their ideas and conditions. It is done amongst the MASSES of people. Period.

in which case, it should be called 'the minority line'.
No. it is called the mass line. Minority line makes no sense. "Mass" line is a reference to the masses, not to a majority.

But, you misled me about what it means. Had you been honest, I would not have asked for evidence, I would instead have just called it plain and simple 'substitutionism'.
How is it substitutionism? Another unfounded claim.

So stop calling it the 'mass line', which it isn't. It's 'what we think is best for you ignorant schmucks whether you like it or not line'.
What you describe goes against the mass line (dont you get it?). If communists used the method of force feeding the masses things whether they liked it or not, then that would be commandism. I already explained this. Period.

Oh dear, you've got me there! Yes, I admit my guilty secret, just no more third degree...

One small point: no one tried to sell me 'the mass line' at school, or call the education I received by that name.

Was that what ruined your education, by any chance?

Huh? You make less sense each time.

You failed to respond to that thread because you were no longer able to make up things, you were no longer able to engage me, and so you use excuses to hide the fact that you know that little about Mao or the chinese revolution. Own up.

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd August 2008, 20:33

STheP

For example, I'll give a few small ones that are profoundly shaped by the Mass Line...Young Lords Pary, Black Panthers Party are just little encapsulate examples of attempts carry forward Mass Line practice that people can dig up.

Also on 'lowly' cadre reports to leadership, that was done! Ummm...I am not sure if you have been in party organizations, but this is the function of Democratic Centralism at its basic level, if this is not happening, you have a dysfunctional grouping.

Yes, we know all about the claims made about the CCP, the Black Panthers and all the rest, just as we know all about the claims made by the US government about WMD in Iraq.

What we haven't seen from a single one of you yet is the evidence. Even the US goverment came clean in the end!

Why so shy? If it's there, produce it. If it's not, then drop the 'from the masses' part of the claim.

I did try to explain this to you in simple terms, ShiteThe Path, but it seems even I failed.http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/eusa_wall.gif

How you manage to cope from day to day without people having to remind you how to walk and talk, goodness only knows.

And we are still waiting for the link to that post you alleged I altered.

Don't tell me that you do not understand that too!

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd August 2008, 20:35

RSOA:

Asked about what?

The 'mass line'.

Vendetta

23rd August 2008, 20:39

Oooooooooooooooooh, okay, I got you.

I still kinda want my question answered though.

Rawthentic

23rd August 2008, 20:45

Rosa:

you asking for evidence of how the masses were involved in this is quite ridiculous.

Why dont you do some research online (ever heard of google?) on the chinese revolution, black panthers, or the groups that STP posted?

Why dont you read Red Star over China, Fanshen, the Battle for China's Past, the Black Panthers Speak, etc? They ALL have evidence of how the masses were NOT coerced into the campaigns by the party, but instead, in the real spirit of communist leadership, convinced to do so. Thats what its all about: patient persuasion. You THINK you uphold Lenin, but it is the same method the Bolsheviks used. Did Lenin force the workers to have his Party be at the fore? Or did the workers come to that understanding through real struggle and explanation of the need to do so?

Again, I have shown how you are a hypocrite, particularly when it comes to Lenin (as I did in that other thread you abandoned, and I would be glad to pop it back up and show how I proved you wrong when it came to Lenin...again).

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd August 2008, 20:55

Raw:

Wow.

That is the point of the mass line: to engage in dialogue with the people, learn from their ideas and conditions. It is done amongst the MASSES of people. Period.

We've got that part, what we haven't yet received/seen is the evidence that was used by the CCP (and the others) that went into its formation.

If it doesn't exist, why then describe it as 'from the masses'?

So, you were sold a bill of goods then.

That must be so embarrassing!http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/rotf.gif

No. it is called the mass line. Minority line makes no sense. "Mass" line is a reference to the masses, not to a majority.

We've got that part too: but in view of your incapacity to produce the hundreds of millions of documents the masses must have filled in (or had filled in for them), then the only conclusion possible is that 'mass line' must represent the view of the CCP alone, and so should be re-named the 'minority line', and re-described as 'from the minority to the majority'.

Now, it will be very easy to shut me up: produce this historic evidence.

Bluster -- while impressive -- (and well done there!) is not quite enough, I'm afraid.

How is it substitutionism? Another unfounded claim.

And I will withdraw it, and apologise profusely, if and when you produce the evidence that the 'mass line was indeed 'from the masses'.

Until then, that accusation remains entirely reasonable.

What you describe goes against the mass line (dont you get it?). If communists used the method of force feeding the masses things whether they liked it or not, then that would be commandism. I already explained this. Period.

Well, it would do if the masses had been involved, as you say. But then, if that were the case, there would be mountains of evidence piled up somewhere.

Where is it?

Unfortunately for you, in the absence of that evidence, my description 'what we think is best for you ignorant schmucks whether you like it or not line' is quite reasonable, too.

Once more, the solution is simple: produce that evidence, and shut me up.

You failed to respond to that thread because you were no longer able to make up things, you were no longer able to engage me, and so you use excuses to hide the fact that you know that little about Mao or the chinese revolution. Own up.

I suppose you have evidence to back this up, too?

No!

How unlucky you Maoist Moaners are, and no mistake. http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/eusa_liar.gif

It's so sad.http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/eusa_boohoo.gif

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd August 2008, 21:12

Raw:

you asking for evidence of how the masses were involved in this is quite ridiculous.

I can see why you would say this, in view of the fact that it does not exist.

As I said to ShineTheFloor, if I were to make a series of unfounded allegations about Mao -- that he was a mass murderer, that he abused female comrades for decades, that he was off his rocker for the last ten or twenty years of his life --, you'd scream the place down, and demand I produce the evidence or withdraw those slurs.

What you would not allow me to do is say this:

you asking for evidence is quite ridiculous.

Same, then, with you dupes..., er, sorry, comrades.

Why dont you do some research online (ever heard of google?) on the chinese revolution, black panthers, or the groups that STP posted?

The original documents (or their copies) are not on line -- unless, of course, you know differently.

Why dont you read Red Star over China, Fanshen, the Battle for China's Past, the Black Panthers Speak, etc? They ALL have evidence of how the masses were NOT coerced into the campaigns by the party, but instead, in the real spirit of communist leadership, convinced to do so. Thats what its all about: patient persuasion. You THINK you uphold Lenin, but it is the same method the Bolsheviks used. Did Lenin force the workers to have his Party be at the fore? Or did the workers come to that understanding through real struggle and explanation of the need to do so?

No one has said they were coerced; what I am asking for is quite simple: evidence that this was indeed 'from the masses' as you lot allege.

And I have read some of the above, and I failed to see the original documentation there too. Do I need new glasses?

Perhaps you can help me out: which one contains it?

Again, I have shown how you are a hypocrite, particularly when it comes to Lenin (as I did in that other thread you abandoned, and I would be glad to pop it back up and show how I proved you wrong when it came to Lenin...again).

Whether or not I am as you say I am, that is, if you will allow me to point this out, an entirely separate matter, and totally unrelated to the question whether you can produce this evidence (just a representative sample will do!).

However, I do understand the predicament you are in, and fully sympathise with your desperate attempts to deflect attention from the impossible task I have set you, by attacking me. http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/rotf.gif

But, it was you (not me) who quoted the infamous words: 'from the masses to the masses'.

Once more, it will be quite easy to shut me up, and extract a very painful apology from me: produce that evidence.

Failing that, shall we change the title to: 'the massive con line'?

Rawthentic

23rd August 2008, 21:16

Like STP said, this is no court. I dont need to provide evidence that the mass line was used to lead the people in revolution.

Those real, living revolutions are evidence of enough of how it was used! The Nepali and Indian revolutions are proof as well! The support the Black Panthers had was due to this method! The Panthers did a concrete investigation of the situation facing Black people, and went out with political programs that REFLECTED the desires and higher aspirations of Black people. That is why there were Free Breakfast, Health Care and School programs for Black communities; it was a result of the use of this method.

Likewise, during the chinese revolution, concrete studies and investigations were made into village and overall chinese life. This then led to campaigns to right wrongs, amongst other things. If you think I am lying, too bad, thats not my problem. You can read the books that show this evidence VERY CLEARLY.

In fact, maybe Ill give a little taste of this mass line worked during the agrarian revolution in China (as shown in the book Fanshen by William Hinton). At a certain stage of this complex process, the village cadres (leaders of the agrarian movement) began to take on excesses, mistreat the people, and basically, go against the maoist (communist) spirit of 'serve the people'. Some cadres beat those who would not attend meetings, and those who disobeyed them for whatever reasons. Other cadres took liberties with women (many women who did not consent) and robbed things from the people and from warehouses, things that were to be used to distribute amongst the people as a part of the movement. When these problems and excesses became widespread (meaning, around the county and nation), the CCP called upon the villages to form peasant delegations that would bring together their cadres, analyze their past, crimes, and shortcomings, and decide whether they would continue as cadres or not! Think about what this means. It is was a method of mobilizing the masses to stand up against wrong (bourgeois) methods of leadership and demand that the cadres act like true servants of the people. The result was that the cadres experienced a drastic change in their consciousness and practice. Seeing all those peasants together, indicting their cadres made a powerful impact on the cadres themselves, and created a remolding effect. This created a higher degree of unity in the village, within the cadres, and was crucial to defeat the Kuomintang.

Does this make sense? I think it makes a nice distinction between bourgeois leadership and what needs to be rev leadership.

There is your evidence. Read the book. If you think that evidence like this lies, too bad. Do your own research.

I suppose you have evidence to back this up, too?

No!
Sure.

You said you would reply, and you never did (because you could not)!

Thats evidence enough. If you want shut me up, bring that thread back and respond it (with substance please, although I know it can be hard for you).

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd August 2008, 21:19

RSOA:

I still kinda want my question answered though.

Me too.

It seems that the supporters of the 'mass line' are not too good at answering honest questions from one of the masses...

Does not inspire confidence, does it?

Rawthentic

23rd August 2008, 21:24

Real revolutions inspire confidence (and provide evidence).

You asking for some sort of "stats" takes away from the real problem: your unwillingness to engage in the theoretical aspect of it. In fact, that is where we could talk about HOW it was used during the chinese revolution (as I already have done in the last post I made here).

My intention is not to "shut you up", I want to get into these issues, and you asking for some sort of evidence (which you could easily look up on google or read one of the books i provided) takes away from that discussion. Or are you gonna say that you are only here for dialectics?

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd August 2008, 21:29

Raw:

Like STP said, this is no court. I dont need to provide evidence that the mass line was used to lead the people in revolution.

So, you don't have any then?

Just be honest.

In that case, you lot won't mind if we re-name it the 'mass lie', will you? :lol:

Those real, living revolutions are evidence of enough of how it was used! The Nepali and Indian revolutions are proof as well! The support the Black Panthers had was due to this method! The Panthers did a concrete investigation of the situation facing Black people, and went out with political programs that REFLECTED the desires and higher aspirations of Black people. That is why there were Free Breakfast, Health Care and School programs for Black communities; it was a result of the use of this method.

Likewise, during the chinese revolution, concrete studies and investigations were made into village and overall chinese life. This then led to campaigns to right wrongs, amongst other things. If you think I am lying, too bad, thats not my problem. You can read the books that show this evidence VERY CLEARLY.

In fact, maybe Ill give a little taste of this mass line worked during the agrarian revolution in China (as shown in the book Fanshen by William Hinton). At a certain stage of this complex process, the village cadres (leaders of the agrarian movement) began to take on excesses, mistreat the people, and basically, go against the maoist (communist) spirit of 'serve the people'. Some cadres beat those who would not attend meetings, and those who disobeyed them for whatever reasons. Other cadres took liberties with women (many women who did not consent) and robbed things from the people and from warehouses, things that were to be used to distribute amongst the people as a part of the movement. When these problems and excesses became widespread (meaning, around the county and nation), the CCP called upon the villages to form peasant delegations that would bring together their cadres, analyze their past, crimes, and shortcomings, and decide whether they would continue as cadres or not! Think about what this means. It is was a method of mobilizing the masses to stand up against wrong (bourgeois) methods of leadership and demand that the cadres act like true servants of the people. The result was that the cadres experienced a drastic change in their consciousness and practice. Seeing all those peasants together, indicting their cadres made a powerful impact on the cadres themselves, and created a remolding effect. This created a higher degree of unity in the village, within the cadres, and was crucial to defeat the Kuomintang.

Does this make sense? I think it makes a nice distinction between bourgeois leadership and what needs to be rev leadership.

There is your evidence. Read the book. If you think that evidence like this lies, too bad. Do your own research.

1) You said this wasn't a court, and you did not need to produce the required evidence, and then you produced it!

Are you screwing with us, you little tinker! http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/eusa_naughty.gif

2) This is still not the original documentation. But nice try.

3) I am not the one who is trying to con the good people here with a claim that this was 'from the masses', so it's not up to me to do the research.

Simple point: produce the original evidence, or withdraw the 'from the masses' claim.

Sure.

You said you would reply, and you never did (because you could not)!

Thats evidence enough. If you want shut me up, bring that thread back and respond it (with substance please, although I know it can be hard for you).

Ok, good point.

Now that you have shown how good you are at producing evidence, can we have the evidence that this document was 'from the masses'?

Why is it that you are so good in one area (i.e., nailing my sorry ass to the floor over an earlier promise) but are so rubbish at defending your rash claim that this was 'from the masses'?

Rosa Lichtenstein

23rd August 2008, 21:32

Raw:

Real revolutions inspire confidence (and provide evidence).

You asking for some sort of "stats" takes away from the real problem: your unwillingness to engage in the theoretical aspect of it. In fact, that is where we could talk about HOW it was used during the chinese revolution (as I already have done in the last post I made here).

My intention is not to "shut you up", I want to get into these issues, and you asking for some sort of evidence (which you could easily look up on google or read one of the books i provided) takes away from that discussion. Or are you gonna say that you are only here for dialectics?

Hey, you are really good at deflecting attention from the main issue here -- but, not quite good enough my desperate friend.

Once more: produce the evidence or agree with me that it should be called 'the mass lie'.

ShineThePath

23rd August 2008, 22:12

Rosa's demand for this type of evidence is just a clear way of derailing discussion. The evidence is historical evidence that we have already referred to, we have already clearly put forward what this method is.

Its unclear what Rosa is demanding, why type of evidence, its the same way christian fundamentalists demand evidence for evolution occuring. Its the exact same demand. It borderlines absurdity, how can we show Mass Line operating and being put to practice outside these historical examples, why not make the same demand for Lenin, the Bolsheviks, and Democratic Centralism...its the same thing.

At this point I recommend Comrades ignore her demands for this evidence, I suggest we give her evidence in the form of the history of development, I reommend checking out http://www.massline.info/ for instance.

But Rosa has so far through these series of discussions has proven herself to be intellectual impoverished and dishonest. That is not a surprise considering her revolutionary practice consists of only self-promotion on this site...you got to win the reactionary kiddies some how.. (and calling be "ShitethePath" is apparently how you do it).

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th August 2008, 00:20

ShineTheWindow:

Rosa's demand for this type of evidence is just a clear way of derailing discussion. The evidence is historical evidence that we have already referred to, we have already clearly put forward what this method is.

When Maoists say things like 'from the masses' it is quite reasonable for them to be asked: 'Ok, so where's the evidence that this is "from the masses"?'

Otherwise, withdraw the claim, and just call it the 'mass lie', as I suggested.

Its unclear what Rosa is demanding, why type of evidence, its the same way christian fundamentalists demand evidence for evolution occuring. Its the exact same demand. It borderlines absurdity, how can we show Mass Line operating and being put to practice outside these historical examples, why not make the same demand for Lenin, the Bolsheviks, and Democratic Centralism...its the same thing.

1) On the contrary, it is very clear what I am asking: produce the primary evidence that the CCP (and the rest) used to form their 'mass line'. I've said this several times already.

If you missed it, may I suggest you change your name to 'ShineMyGlassesSomeonePlease!'.

2) My request is nothing like the "way christian fundamentalists demand evidence for evolution occuring", since the evidence must already exist in some form, somewhere, if you lot are right that this is indeed 'from the masses'? [Unless you are suggesting that it doesn't exist!]

Now, the reticence of you Maoists to produce this evidence, and your desperate attempts to deflect attention from this fact, indicates that you lot have never seen this evidence, and yet you all naively swallowed the CCP claim that this was indeed from 'the masses'.

In fact, this makes you Maoists look like Christian Fundamentalists -- who accept everything they read in the Bible, just like you lot believe whatever the CCP tells you.

At this point I recommend Comrades ignore her demands for this evidence, I suggest we give her evidence in the form of the history of development, I reommend checking out http://www.massline.info/ for instance.

1) Thanks for the link, but I am afraid this makes things far worse, for now we have to consider the 'mass line' from places like Indonesia, India, The Philippines and the USA to add to the 'mass line' from China.

This ropes in at least another 1.5 billion people, taking the total to about 40% of the population of the planet. The mountain of original data that the Maoist parties concerned must have collected in their quest to make sure this was indeed 'from the masses' is even more daunting now. Where has it all gone?

Have you seen any of it?

No!?

I can't believe it!

But, how do you know this was 'from the masses', then?

None of this is helping your defence!

2) And we all know why you want the good people here to 'ignore' my demand that you produce the evidence or withdraw the 'from the masses'..., er fib.

[Hint: there is no evidence. You guys just made it up. What little tinkers you are!]

But Rosa has so far through these series of discussions has proven herself to be intellectual impoverished and dishonest. That is not a surprise considering her revolutionary practice consists of only self-promotion on this site...you got to win the reactionary kiddies some how.. (and calling be "ShitethePath" is apparently how you do it).

1) Sincere apologies for that mis-type of your name 'ScheissThePath', it won't happen again, honest!

2) And as "intellectual[ly] impoverished and dishonest" I am, or am not, you still have not produced the evidence.

So, thrash around, distract attention, attack me and question my sanity as much as you like, the bottom line is that you lot have been rumbled: the mass line is indeed 'the mass lie'.

Have a nice fume...http://www.politicalcrossfire.com/forum/images/smiles/999922.gif

Rawthentic

24th August 2008, 01:38

That book I provided information from, Fanshen, is an important historical reference as far as the chinese revolution goes, and in particular the agrarian revolution part of it, before the seizure of power.

I provided concrete evidence of how the masses were mobilized into criticizing the bad cadres in order to maintain correct forms of leadership (the mass line!) and you ignored it. You can read the book yourself. Or another one of the books I provided. Don't be lazy, you can take some time off dialectics. I mean, nobody is ever going to care how many books you write on DM, it will never have an impact beyond this site.

Also, dont ignore the paragraph that I wrote on the Black Panthers, concretely showing how the mass line was used in this respect - unless you think those brothers created those mass programs without knowing the conditions Black people lived in!

Here's what Dr. Paul H. B. Godwin had to say:

This volume is the result of direct observation of the implementation of the Agrarian Law between 26 February and 15 April 1948. For the student of the political techniques of a CCP mass movement campaign, this book is invaluable. Central to the CCP’s methods of political mobilization is the "mass line," and the details of the Crooks’ description bring the discrete sociopolitical processes involved into clear light. For the general reader, this volume provides insights into life in a Chinese village and the manner in which CCP cadres used the economic and social structures of a village to press forward with their political as well as economic programs. Perhaps it may even persuade the reader to look at the Crooks’ earlier study of Ten Mile Inn1 and William Hinton’s Fanshen.2In a nation of peasants the village became the focus of the basic work of the Chinese Communist Party. To understand the success of the CCP in the 1930s and 1940s, it is essential to have a good grasp of the political techniques the communists applied in rural China.There's more concrete evidence, shown within the books of Ten Mile Inn: Mass Movement in a Chinese Village as well as Fanshen. Both these books prove the mass line correct. Done. http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1981/may-jun/godwin.htm

You saying that we made all of this up is so funny. If we had made it up, the chinese revolution would never have existed. This is something that you keep detracting from. Like I said, beside the evidence I provided from the book Fanshen, the fact that this great revolution occurred is evidence enough of how the mass line was used. You seem to think that the CCP ordered the masses around like sheep the entire time, and have never proven that, of course.

So, I gave concrete evidence of how the mass line was used, now shut up.

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th August 2008, 02:25

Raw:

That book I provided information from, Fanshen, is an important historical reference as far as the chinese revolution goes, and in particular the agrarian revolution part of it, before the seizure of power.

I provided concrete evidence of how the masses were mobilized into criticizing the bad cadres in order to maintain correct forms of leadership (the mass line!) and you ignored it. You can read the book yourself. Or another one of the books I provided. Don't be lazy, you can take some time off dialectics. I mean, nobody is ever going to care how many books you write on DM, it will never have an impact beyond this site.

Also, dont ignore the paragraph that I wrote on the Black Panthers, concretely showing how the mass line was used in this respect - unless you think those brothers created those mass programs without knowing the conditions Black people lived in!

I have already covered this; the books you mention contain anecdotal evidence, etc. What we require is the primary data -- the millions of interview sheets and questionnaires that the CCP must have processed in order to produce the 'mass line', so that it was indeed 'from the masses' and not just 'from a few (CCP-apparatchiks) to the masses'.

You keep ignoring this!

Of course, if this data does not exist, and never did, as I am beginning to suspect, then this 'mass line' was indeed 'the mass lie'.

And thanks for that link; it supplies some secondary evidence that some of the masses were involved, but how many we are not told, and what they contributed is left obscure.

But, once again, the primary data is conspicuous by its absence.

Has anyone seen it? Have you?

Or have you been conned too? Looks like you have...

You saying that we made all of this up is so funny. If we had made it up, the chinese revolution would never have existed. This is something that you keep detracting from. Like I said, beside the evidence I provided from the book Fanshen, the fact that this great revolution occurred is evidence enough of how the mass line was used. You seem to think that the CCP ordered the masses around like sheep the entire time, and have never proven that, of course.

So, I gave concrete evidence of how the mass line was used, now shut up.

I have not said you personally made this up, but the fact that you cannot produce the orignal data suggests that someone in the CCP did.

And no, until you produce that data, and alas for you: I won't 'shut up'.

ShineThePath

24th August 2008, 03:07

Another conversation degenerated by Rosa Lickin'boots. HA!:laugh: See now that's quality comedy! Richard Pryor, Rodney Dangerfield, and George Carlin have nothing on me...though I learn from the best, Rosa Licken'cajones.:p

ROLF PWND.

ShineThePath

24th August 2008, 03:14

"What we require is the primary data -- the millions of interview sheets and questionnaires that the CCP must have processed in order to produce the 'mass line', so that it was indeed 'from the masses' and not just 'from a few (CCP-apparatchiks) to the masses'."

Oh God...you know who also likes this information? Pig cops and informants. Of course now that this is all historical, its behind us, but you really expect us to have access to that type of documentation. You're off your rocker.

A point altogether about Rosa, who continually degenerates these discussions into such simple formalism and legalism as "provide me the interview sheets." Rather than discussing the politics of the matter, she slips into such formalism because her method is that of opportunism. She has re-edited her own posts to avoid criticism of her metaphysical proposition of "Ascertaining the Will" of people, and she has yet to provide her own ideas of method in contrast to both Mass Line and Transitional Program.

We have provided account a schematic understanding of Mass Line, which for us are contentious and there is still struggle around, and we have provided historical documents to which people can see whether or not such application was meaningful or not...but asking where are interview sheets? That is bogus, its not a discussion of politics anymore, and we're not going to devolve into this type of silliness.

I request comrades to ignore this demand, its a ghost chase.

Don't let this Hack devolve a political conversation.

Rawthentic

24th August 2008, 03:29

Yes, clearly Rosa has ignored that I provided concrete evidence of how the mass line was used.

She expects us to present her with archives that the masses filled out!! What the hell? The mass line does not mean that communists go out and give questionnaires to the people. It means that we go out amongst the masses, make investigations, and based on that, create political programs that can mobilize the people. You got it all wrong. Omg, this shows how ignorant you are of maoism or china. Fill out sheets? Wow...

Rosa does think she can trick us, but she cannot. She does derail from the original point of this thread: politics, and the difference between the mass line and the transitional method of trotsky. Where is her discussion there? Nowhere. She has a way of detracting and making excuses when she finds herself unable to debate the actual theoretical content of an issue.

I shall no longer reply to this (ridiculous) silliness if Rosa again asks for evidence of sheets the people filled out. How funny.

ShineThePath

24th August 2008, 03:34

More importantly, lets assume there were interview sheets or corresspondence within the party about these matters, these things are not usually made public or are readily accessible. Its absurd.

Sendo

24th August 2008, 03:50

if Gallup wasn't involved in the polling I don't want to hear about it.

Winter

24th August 2008, 07:00

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th August 2008, 11:42

Oh dear, I've upset the Maoists!

Off to the salt mine with me!

ShineTheSpoons:

Another conversation degenerated by Rosa Lickin'boots. HA! See now that's quality comedy! Richard Pryor, Rodney Dangerfield, and George Carlin have nothing on me...though I learn from the best, Rosa Licken'cajones

So, still no evidence then?

'Mass Lie' is it?

Oh God...you know who also likes this information? Pig cops and informants. Of course now that this is all historical, its behind us, but you really expect us to have access to that type of documentation. You're off your rocker.

A point altogether about Rosa, who continually degenerates these discussions into such simple formalism and legalism as "provide me the interview sheets." Rather than discussing the politics of the matter, she slips into such formalism because her method is that of opportunism. She has re-edited her own posts to avoid criticism of her metaphysical proposition of "Ascertaining the Will" of people, and she has yet to provide her own ideas of method in contrast to both Mass Line and Transitional Program.

We have provided account a schematic understanding of Mass Line, which for us are contentious and there is still struggle around, and we have provided historical documents to which people can see whether or not such application was meaningful or not...but asking where are interview sheets? That is bogus, its not a discussion of politics anymore, and we're not going to devolve into this type of silliness.

I request comrades to ignore this demand, its a ghost chase.

Don't let this Hack devolve a political conversation.

As I have already said: rant and rave as much as you like, until this data is produced, the only coinclusion is that you Mao worshippers have fallen for a 'mass con'.

And, if I were to say nasty things about Mao and his gang, I do not think you'd allow me to say in my defence:

but asking where is my evidence sheets? That is bogus, its not a discussion of politics anymore, and I'm not going to devolve into this type of silliness.

No, you'd be demanding I withdraw my allegations.

Same here: either produce the primary data, or say where it (or a representative sample) can be found, or admit that this policy is not 'from the masses'.

And, interesting though your analysis if the 'mass lie' is, that is no substitute for hard data.

and we're not going to devolve into this type of silliness.

Yes, and we know why; the evidence does not exist, or you would have produced it --, so you lot are stupid enough to believe all you have been told by the CCP.

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th August 2008, 11:59

Raw:

Yes, clearly Rosa has ignored that I provided concrete evidence of how the mass line was used.

She expects us to present her with archives that the masses filled out!! What the hell? The mass line does not mean that communists go out and give questionnaires to the people. It means that we go out amongst the masses, make investigations, and based on that, create political programs that can mobilize the people. You got it all wrong. Omg, this shows how ignorant you are of maoism or china. Fill out sheets? Wow...

Rosa does think she can trick us, but she cannot. She does derail from the original point of this thread: politics, and the difference between the mass line and the transitional method of trotsky. Where is her discussion there? Nowhere. She has a way of detracting and making excuses when she finds herself unable to debate the actual theoretical content of an issue.

1) I did not ignore it, as you can see from my comments. Are your glasses dirty, too? Ask ShineTheLenses -- he'll clean them for you.

2) Once more, either this primary data exists, and you lot have seen it, or you have been sold a bill of goods.

It looks like the latter is the case.

3) You lot are the ones who keep distracting from this central idea: if you are going to make claims that the Chinese masses, and the masses of other countries (or a representative sample of these masses), helped form the 'mass line', then there must exist somewhere primary data upon which this claim is based.

Now, one of you, at least, must have seen this data. If you lot haven't, then you were gullible in the extreme to accept the claim that this was 'from the masses' when there is no evidence that it was.

Sure, there is secondary testimony that a tiny proportion of the masses were involved, but from what I can see, this involved CCP aparatchiks 'educating' the masses. Sounds like precious little listening was done -- after all the masses must have their 'consciousness raised' so who wants to listen to their benighted thoughts? Certainly not the peripatetic prophets from the CCP...

They had masses to 'educate'.

So, it is clear that the 'mass line' was 'to the masses' -- no problem there.

But, what hard evidence have you lot got that it was 'from the masses'.

None so far. Big surprise...

So, produce this data, or admit that this is not 'from the masses'.

I shall no longer reply to this (ridiculous) silliness if Rosa again asks for evidence of sheets the people filled out. How funny.

Good; I accept your admission of defeat.

So, you agree, this should in fact be called 'the mass lie'.

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th August 2008, 12:04

ShineTheToiletBowlNext:

More importantly, lets assume there were interview sheets or corresspondence within the party about these matters, these things are not usually made public or are readily accessible. Its absurd.

So, you admit that you lot have never seen this data. You just 'assume' it exists.

Not even a tiny proportion of it?

Why is the CCP so coy?

Could it be that this data does not exist?

Surely not, otherwise it means that Maoism is built on a 'mass lie'.

Who can come to the defence of these poor, gullible Maoists?

Does anyone else at RevLeft know where this mountain of hard data has gone?

Or must we conclude that the Maoists here are also party to spreading this lie?

It's beginning to look that way...

Rosa Lichtenstein

24th August 2008, 12:06

WD:

I think these are words of wisdom and have been proven true.

As, indeed, have mine: this evidence does not exist, and the Maoists here have allowed themselves to be conned.

No, no thanks needed. Just doing my job...:lol:

Die Neue Zeit

15th March 2009, 06:49

Sorry for the stupid question. Both these ideas sound somewhat similar so...

What is the difference between Mao's Mass Line and Trotsky's Transitional Method.

IMHO the Mass Line dresses itself up in more identity politics language, but I could be wrong.

Both approaches suffer from broad economism, not taking into consideration the working-class need for politico-ideological class independence, and revising the lost notion that the struggle for socialism is an economic struggle (merely a maximum goal of the economic struggle).

The political struggle and the economic struggle each have a two-fold, minimum-maximum character. For the economic struggle: economic struggles promoting politico-ideological independence for the working class now, social labour ("socialism") later on. For the political struggle: politico-ideological class independence now, the DOTP later on.

There are also peripheral sociocultural struggles of a minimum-maximum character around various issues.

1) The "mass" line substitutes identity politics ("peripheral sociocultural struggles") for economic struggles promoting politico-ideological class independence, all the while claiming that such struggles reek of narrow economism and that political struggles for politico-ideological class independence are "democratist."

2) The original "transitional method" of Trotsky (not the modern ones which substitute social-democratic struggles for the aforementioned economic struggles before applying their "transitional methods") already takes politico-ideological class independence (for granted) as the basis for new economic struggles.