Maoism

[Vendetta]

What's the difference between Maoism and Leninism?

[Dros]

Maoism is a continuation of Marxism-Leninism.

In addition to Leninism, Maoists uphold the key contributions of Mao Tse-tung such as New Democracy, Mass Line, and Cultural Revolution.

For further reading on these topics I suggest you visit here (http://www.rwor.org/avakian/avakian-works.html) and the Marxist Internet Archive. (http://marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/index.htm) Especially valuable for beginners is the Little Red Book (Quotations from Chairman Mao).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Except, Maoists make stuff up about the 'mass line'.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/mass-line-vs-t87244/index.html

[Rawthentic]

And, I schooled rosa on a thread that went into the heart of what the chinese revolution meant, and, contrary to what she said, never replied again.

Why dont you post that thread here, rosa?

I'm not even going to get into why its ridiculous to ask for information questionnaires. Thats not what the mass line is!

[Hiero]

Mao added to Lenin new theoritical developments. His writings on the superstructure and structure and his writings on contradiction and practice are his major accomplisments.

His writings and political leadership have influenced the majority of violent revolutions around the world, even thoose who were not necessarily communists. His theoritical writings influence many others, including western intellectuals such as Althusser.

I think it can be summed up as:

i) the superstructure lags behind structural changes. So part of the old remains in the new. Cultural revolution (the masses mobalised to attack reactionaries in culture, society, state etc) is the answer to reactionary elements in the new socialist society.

ii) Not all contradictions are antagonistic. And in various systems there are primary and seconary contradictions. So in China during the first half of the centuary, there were many contradictions. Contradictions between China and Japan, which was primary and antagonistic, between proleteriat and bourgeoisie antagonistic but times of national liberation secondary, between proleteriat and peasantry which were non-antagonistic.

I think these theoritical developments are the important things to take from Mao. Also included would be his theories on guerilla warfare for communist in 3rd world countries.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raw:


And, I schooled rosa on a thread that went into the heart of what the chinese revolution meant, and, contrary to what she said, never replied again.

Why dont you post that thread here, rosa?

I'm not even going to get into why its ridiculous to ask for information questionnaires. Thats not what the mass line is!

And we both know why you are avoiding this, as is every other Maoist: the 'mass line' is only 'to the masses' not 'from the masses' as you lot had been conned into believing.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

H:


ii) Not all contradictions are antagonistic. And in various systems there are primary and seconary contradictions. So in China during the first half of the centuary, there were many contradictions. Contradictions between China and Japan, which was primary and antagonistic, between proleteriat and bourgeoisie antagonistic but times of national liberation secondary, between proleteriat and peasantry which were non-antagonistic.

They are not even 'contradictions' to begin with -- unless, of course you can show otherwise (and good luck on that one -- you'd be the first human being in history to succeed there!).

[Rawthentic]

Rosa:

we have been led to believe nothing that does not exist. The chinese revolution is testament to many things, the mass line is one of them. So are the black panthers. A simple study of these two movements (which you clearly have never done) will prove the mass line valid and correct. Dont ask for questionnaries! :lol:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raw (I thought you said you were not going to get dragged into this, or was that just another porky you Maoists like to tell?):


we have been led to believe nothing that does not exist. The chinese revolution is testament to many things, the mass line is one of them. So are the black panthers. A simple study of these two movements (which you clearly have never done) will prove the mass line valid and correct. Dont ask for questionnaries!

And yet, there is no physical evidence that the 'mass line' was 'from the masses'.

In that case, the conclusion is that it was simply 'to the masses' and should therefore be re-named 'the mass lie'.

['Porky' is cockney rhyming slang for 'pork pie' = 'lie'.]

[Dros]

Can we split the posts of Rosa whining to the thread about Rosa whining about the mass line so that we can talk about Maoism here and not Rosa's juvenile need for statistics about something that can't be measured.

[Rawthentic]

Yeah, I think we should split rosa's trolling? I mean what other way can we describe it when some one asks for "questionnaries" to prove the mass line!:lol:

Like dros said, it is not measurable by things like that. Read on all the campaigns the CCP did during the chinese revolution and during the socialist phase. Or the panthers. If you dont want to, well that is not my problem. But no one else in the world asks for questionnaires to prove the mass line, because the revolution itself, coupled with the countless works done around them, is proof enough.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dros:


Can we split the posts of Rosa whining to the thread about Rosa whining about the mass line so that we can talk about Maoism here and not Rosa's juvenile need for statistics about something that can't be measured.

Yes, my 'juvenile' need to see the proof that the 'mass line' was indeed 'from the masses' is quite tiresome if you are a true believer like your good self, who has accepted on faith a 'mass lie'.

And there is no need to split this thread, since it is integral to the difference between Leninism and Maoism that the latter is based on a 'mass lie', whereas the former is not.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raw:


Yeah, I think we should split rosa's trolling? I mean what other way can we describe it when some one asks for "questionnaries" to prove the mass line!

They need not be questionaires; any of the original raw data will do, in whatever form it exists. Have you seen any of it?

[But we already know the answer to that one.:lol:]

Of course, if it does not exist, as is becoming increasingly obvious, then my 'mass lie' descriptor is beginning to look all the more accurate.


Like dros said, it is not measurable by things like that. Read on all the campaigns the CCP did during the chinese revolution and during the socialist phase. Or the panthers. If you dont want to, well that is not my problem. But no one else in the world asks for questionnaires to prove the mass line, because the revolution itself, coupled with the countless works done around them, is proof enough

In short, there is no evidence at all that this was 'from the masses', as I alleged.

Thanks for being honest at last

[Rawthentic]

Rosa: can you provide raw evidence that lenin used the mass line lol?

You wont find it! Same goes for mao and china. There are countless works both written by mao and other scholars around those movements that show how it was used. It is not something that can be proved with "raw evidence".

And Maoism is a continuation of Leninism. Unless you can prove otherwise.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raw (getting desperate):


Rosa: can you provide raw evidence that lenin used the mass line lol?

Well, Lenin never claimed he had a 'mass line', nor do us Leninists. It's just you Misguided Maoists who make such claims


You wont find it! Same goes for mao and china. There are countless works both written by mao and other scholars around those movements that show how it was used. It is not something that can be proved with "raw evidence".

Once more then: you admit that there is no evidence that the 'mass line' was 'from the masses', as you lot claimed -- and so it should be re-named the 'mass lie'.


And Maoism is a continuation of Leninism. Unless you can prove otherwise.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but then us Leninists do not make unsubstantiated claims about a 'mass line' that was 'from the masses' when it wasn't -- so that at least distinguishes us from you lot, who do.

[Rawthentic]

Once more then: you admit that there is no evidence that the 'mass line' was 'from the masses', as you lot claimed -- and so it should be re-named the 'mass lie'.
No, it is not my fault you have not done the research. Do it. Its called reading. Its called google. Its called communist revolution - something that cannot be done without the mass line and that Lenin used as well, albeit without that name.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Raw:


No, it is not my fault you have not done the research. Do it. Its called reading. Its called google. Its called communist revolution - something that cannot be done without the mass line and that Lenin used as well, albeit without that name.

I have not claimed that this 'mass lie' is 'from the masses'; so it is not up to me to 'do the research'. It is for you Maoists dupes to produce the evidence or admit that this 'mass lie' in not after all 'from the masses'.

Now, as I have already said: you can moan all you like, attack me as much as you like, distract attention as much as you like, but the bottom line will always be the fact that you lot have been sold a 'mass lie' --, unless, that is, you can produce the original data, or a representative sample of it.

In fact, the way you are desperately thrashing about trying to find something else to help distract attention strongly suggests that you too have not seen this data, and indeed are now quite embarrassed by the fact that you naively swallowed this lie with nothing to back it up.

[chegitz guevara]

Actually, Raw, as the person making the positive claim, you are required to show proof or evidence of your claim. As Rosa is claiming a negative, she is not required to show any evidence. In fact, you can't prove a negative. In order to prove that Lenin never used the mass line, she'd have to basically write a biography of Lenin that was so inclusive as to be unreadable. It's much easier for you, as you only have to show one instance of Lenin using the mass line, or something like it.

In Lenin's work as an editor of Islra, Russian workers constantly wrote letters to him, explaining what the situation in Russia was. This wasn't any special property of Lenin, as Robochiya Mysl and Robochiya Dyelo also had workers letters. In fact, pretty much every paper aimed at workers in the socialist movement had such. In RM, however, there was a great dichotomy between what the workers were saying, and what the editorials were saying. So it was obvious the editors of RM weren't listening to the workers, merely preaching at at them, in the top down method Rosa rightly opposes.

With Iskra, on the other hand, Lenin used those letters as examples to both understand what was happening in Russia, and to illustrate social democratic ideas. This isn't the same thing as the mass line, because he isn't going out among the people. In this case, the people are going to him, but he is listening to, learning from, and using their example to explain to, the workers. This is the mass line in embryonic form.

As to whether Maoism is a continuation and development of Leninism, I would say yes and no. Maoism definitely borrows ideologically from Leninism, and Mao's method of letting the facts on the ground guide him rather than hewing fast to an ideological line regardless of the facts put him in the same area. On the other hand, Lenin's polemics against the Social Revolutionary party, who had similar politics to Mao, leads me to believe it isn't as straightforward as some comrades would like to believe. That's all we can tell, based on what Lenin wrote.

What we can't do is foresee whether or not Lenin would have agreed with Mao. For example, does the existence of a workers' state in Russia, however degenerated, mean that the Chinese peasantry were actually being led and guided by the worker class? Many Trotskyists argue that the peasantry cannot overthrow capitalism, but Marx and Lenin argued that the peasantry couldn't overthrow capitalism on their own, that they had to be led and in alliance with the proletariat. Now, of course, Stalin did pretty much everything he could to sink the Chinese revolution, consciously or not I don't pretend to know. It is clear, however, that the USSR was an inspiration to the Chinese peasantry, and that if the Soviets hadn't succeeded, the Chinese wouldn't have either. Perhaps Trotskyists look at revolutions too narrowly, as revolutions in one country, rather than as part of an international socialist revolution led by the Russian proletariat.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CG, thanks for that, but it is very easy to prove a negative.

In everyday terms, here is an example: someone claims that it's not raining. You look outside and see that it is as dry as a bone, with the Sun blazing out of a cloudless sky. In everyday terms you have just proved it is not raining.

In scientific terms, a scientist claims that the continents are not immobile. Along comes Plate Techtonics which proves the continents are not immobile.

In mathematics, it is possible to prove, say, that the primes do not form a finite set using proof by contradiction.

You probably meant that it is not possible to prove a falsehood, which would be correct.

In my debate with Raw, I do not in fact need to prove that Lenin did not propose a 'mass line' since Raw has not claimed that he did. He has claimed that Lenin 'used' one, but he has yet to show where and how he did.

And I do not think Trotsky argued that peasants could not be part of a revolution, just that they would need the leadership of the proletariat if it were to be a socialist revolution.

[chegitz guevara]

I wrote Trotskyist, Rosa. And as we all know, Trotsky said he was no Trotskyist. ;)

And thank you for the correction of falsehood v negative. Seriously.

[Winter]

Now, of course, Stalin did pretty much everything he could to sink the Chinese revolution, consciously or not I don't pretend to know.

How so?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

CG, apologies for my misreading you!:blushing:

[chegitz guevara]

How so?

Stalin supported Chaing Kai Shek, continued to have the Kuo Min Tang as the Chinese representative in the Comintern, continued to try and get the CCP to rejoin the KMT, when USSR invaded Manchuria and took over from the Japanese, it turned over the war materials to the KMT, not the CCP.