Do you have to like Stalin to be a Maoist?

[RadicalRadical]

I have a question for Maoists and everybody, do you have to agree with Stalinist policy to be a Maoist? I cannot find clear answers on this. And why does there have to be conflict between Trotskyist strains of Communism and Maoist strains, besides the whole Stalin thing they actually have a lot in common. :confused:

[Incendiarism]

Trotsky didn't believe that the peasantry could bring about a socialist revolution without guidance by the proletariat, whereas maoists place emphasis on the peasants. I think.

[RadicalRadical]

Trotsky didn't believe that the peasantry could bring about a socialist revolution without guidance by the proletariat, whereas maoists place emphasis on the peasants. I think.

But is that a huge difference? I mean I do not consider how the revolution will come about a huge part of a Communist ideology. Unless of course you are talking about Stalinism, which is the belief that the creation of an authoritarian state will lead to revolution somehow....

[Winter]

Here's what Mao has to say about Stalin:

Stalin's Place in History

April 5, 1956

[Extracted from the People's Daily editorial of 5th April, 1956.] After Lenin's death Stalin as the chief leader of the Party and the state creatively applied and developed Marxism-Leninism. In the struggle to defend the legacy of Leninism against its enemies - the Trotskyites, Zinovievities and other bourgeois agents - Stalin expressed the will and wishes of the people and proved himself to be an outstanding Marxist-Leninist fighter. The reason Stalin won the support of the Soviet people and played an important role in history was primarily that he, together with the other leaders of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, brought about the triumph of socialism in the Soviet Union and created the conditions for the victory of the Soviet Union in the war against Hitler; these victories of the Soviet people conformed to the interests of the working class of the world and all progressive mankind. It was therefore quite natural for the name of Stalin to be greatly honoured throughout the world. But having won such high honour among the people both at home and abroad by his correct application of the Leninist line, Stalin erroneously exaggerated his own role and counterposed his individual authority to the collective leadership, and as a result certain of his actions were opposed to certain fundamental Marxist-Leninist concepts he himself had propagated....


Marxist-Leninists hold that leaders play a big role in history. The people and their parties need forerunners who are able to represent the interests and will of the people, stand in the forefront of their historic struggles, and serve as their leaders. But when any leader of the Party or the state places himself over and above the Party and the masses, instead of in their midst, when he alienates himself from the masses, he ceases to have all-round, penetrating insight into the affairs of the state. As long as this was the case, even so outstanding a personality as Stalin could not avoid making unrealistic and erroneous decisions on certain important matters... During the later part of his life, Stalin took more and more pleasure in this cult of the individual and violated the Party's system of democratic centralism and the principle of combining collective leadership with individual responsibility. As a result, he made some serious mistakes: for example, he broadened the scope of the suppression of counter- revolution; he lacked the necessary vigilance on the eve of the anti- fascist war; he failed to pay proper attention to the further development of agriculture and the material welfare of peasantry; he gave certain wrong advice on the international communist movement, and, in particular, made a wrong decision on the question of Yugoslavia. On these issues, Stalin full victim to subjectivism and one-sidedness and divorced himself from objective reality and from the masses.

The cult of the individual is a rotten carry-over from the long history of mankind. The cult of the individual is rooted not only in the exploiting classes but also in the small producers. As is well known, patriarchism is a product of small-producer economy...
The struggle against the cult of the individual, which was launched by the Twentieth Congress, is a great and courageous fight by the communists and the people of the Soviet Union to clear away the ideological obstacles blocking their advance...
It must be pointed out that Stalin's works should, as before, still be seriously studied and that we should accept all that is of value in them, as an important historical legacy, especially those many works in which he defended Leninism and correctly summarized the experience of building up the Soviet Union. But there are two ways of studying them - the Marxist way and the doctrinaire way. Some people treat Stalin's writings in a doctrinaire manner and therefore cannot analyse and see what is correct and what is not and everything that is correct they consider a panacea and apply indiscriminately, and thus inevitably they make mistakes. For instance, Stalin put forward a formula that in different revolutionary periods the main blow should be so directed as to isolate the middle-of-the-road social and political forces of the time. This formula of Stalin's should be treated according to circumstances and from a critical, Marxist point of view. In certain circumstances it may be correct to isolate the middle forces, but it is not correct to isolate them under all circumstances. Our experience teaches us that the main blow of the revolution should be directed at the chief enemy and to isolate him, whereas with the middle forces, a policy of both uniting with them and struggling against them should be adopted, so that they are at least neutralized; and'as circumstances permit, efforts should be made to shift them from their position of neutrality to one of alliance with us in order to facilitate the development of the revolution. But there was a time - the ten years of civil war from 1927 to 1936 - when some of our comrades crudely applied this formula of Stalin's to China's revolution by turning their main attack on the middle forces, singling them out as the most dangerous enemy; the result was that, instead of isolating the real enemy, we isolated ourselves and suffered losses to the advantage of the real enemy. In the light of this doctrinaire error, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China during the period of the anti-Japanese war formulated a policy of developing the progressive forces, winning over the middle-of-the roaders, and isolating the diehards for the purpose of defeating the Japanese aggressors...
Some people consider that Stalin was wrong in everything. This is a grave misconception.

Stalin was a great Marxist-Leninist, yet at the same time a Marxist-Leninist who committed several gross errors without realizing that they were errors. We should view Stalin from a historical standpoint, make a proper and all round analysis to see where he was right and where he was wrong and draw useful lessons therefrom. Both the things he did right and the things he did wrong were phenomena of the international communist movement and bore the imprint of the times. Taken as a whole the international communist movement is only a little over hundred years old and it is only thirty-nine years since the victory of the October Revolution; experience in many fields of revolutionary work is still inadequate. Great achievements have been made, but there are still shortcomings and mistakes.... Reactionary forces the world over are pouring ridicule on this event: they jeer at the fact that we are overcoming mistakes in our camp. But what will come of all this ridicule? There is not the slightest doubt that these scoffers will find themselves facing a still more powerful, forever invincible, great camp of peace and socialism, headed by the Soviet Union, while the murderous, bloodsucking enterprises of these scoffers will be in a pretty fix.

[Winter]

I was in the same boat as you at one point. I liked Mao, but still bought into the whole propaganda of Stalin being evil and contributing nothing. Here's some unbiased sources on Stalin you may want to read about:

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/stalin.html
http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/

[Winter]

Trotsky didn't believe that the peasantry could bring about a socialist revolution without guidance by the proletariat, whereas maoists place emphasis on the peasants. I think.

I just need to clear this up. Maoists and all Marxist-Leninists believe a socialist Revolution must be led by the proletariat. The peasants are secondary in this regard. Maoism does not place peasants in the position of leadership because the proletariat are the ones with the most revolutionary spirit because they know first-hand how landlords and other bourgeoisie elements exploit them.

[nuisance]

I was in the same boat as you at one point. I liked Mao, but still bought into the whole propaganda of Stalin being evil and contributing nothing. Here's some unbiased sources on Stalin you may want to read about:

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/stalin.html
http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/
They're not unbiased though, are they.
How can you link to a website called the Stalin Society and claim it has no bias?

[Incendiarism]

I just need to clear this up. Maoists and all Marxist-Leninists believe a socialist Revolution must be led by the proletariat. The peasants are secondary in this regard. Maoism does not place peasants in the position of leadership because the proletariat are the ones with the most revolutionary spirit because they know first-hand how landlords and other bourgeoisie elements exploit them.

Cool, thanks. I never got around to learning much about maoism though I've been tempted to purchase some of Mao's works which I will get to eventually.

[RadicalRadical]

I will not buy your load of bull on Stalin, Winter, I am sorry, but I am never going to that side. OK, let me rephrase my question, is it possible to follow some of the ideas of Mao without subscribing to Stalinist ideas?

[Winter]

I will not buy your load of bull on Stalin, Winter, I am sorry, but I am never going to that side.

Did you even take the time to research...?


OK, let me rephrase my question, is it possible to follow some of the ideas of Mao without subscribing to Stalinist ideas?

No, because Mao's ideas are the continuation and improvement of Stalin's methods which are Marxist-Leninist.

[Ismail]

Define 'Stalinism' for us.

[RadicalRadical]

Define 'Stalinism' for us.

My definition:

Stalinism: The ideology stemming from the writings and policies of Josef Stalin, a leader of the Soviet Union. It is its basis in the teachings of Vladimir Lenin, who Stalin succeeded. The Stalinist style of government emphasizes policies involving the use of secret police and government propaganda (propaganda that especially utilizes the cult of personality). It is the ideological rival of Trotskyism, another current of Leninism founded by Leon Trotsky. Unlike Trotskyism which calls for international revolution Stalinism calls for socialism in one country, which means that each country would have "socialist" governments until Communism could take hold.

That was my unbiased definition based on my experiences and knowledge.

[JimmyJazz]

I've been tempted to purchase some of Mao's works

Marx2Mao (http://marx2mao.com/) should have enough to convince you that your money could be better spent in other ways.

[Red October]

I suppose you could like some of Mao's ideas, but I don't think you can really call yourself a Maoist if you renounce Stalin. Mao supported (though criticized) Stalin and the USSR. Supposedly, Stalin continued the work on Lenin in furthering Marxism-Leninism and Mao brought it further still. That's what they say anyway. In short, you don't really have Maoism without Stalin.

[DiaMat86]

The foundation of marxism is dialectical materialism. The revolutionary aspect of dialectical materialism is the concept of negation. This concept applies to revolution in that a new social order must negate the old order. In order to be fully negated (complete) the characteristics of social relations must be replace with the contradictory characteristic.

racism/anti-racism
sexism/anti-sexism
exploitation/sharing
nationalism/internationalism
war/peace
anger/kindness
hate/love
bourgeois/working class
idealist/materialist
etc./anti-etc.


The competing left ideology to anti-revisionism is revisionism. Revisionism is defined as removing the revolutionary aspect from Marxism. Anti-revisioism stands for the full negation of the old system. Notable anti-revisionists were Stalin and Mao. Mao broke with the Soviet Union over their phony condemnation of Stalin. That is not to say everything they did was correct.

Socialism is another wage system and retains too many characteristics of capitalism to reach communism. Historically, socialism does not lead to communism. That's why anti-revisionists generally refer to themselves as "communist".

[BIG BROTHER]

Well you there have it boy, Maoism is the continuation of "stalinism"

[Sendo]

it's okay to have your own opinions and like Mao yet disagree with Stalin's actions. Calling yourself "person"ist will get you into this kind of debates into the first place. Keep Mao as your avatar and just avoid calling yourself M-L-M if you don't want people going "A-HA! You call yourself Maoist but on 5 January you denounced comrade Stalin! PWND!!1!"

[Random Precision]

I suppose you could be a Maoist while disliking Stalin's rule, but politically you are still a Stalinist (and it's important to remember that not everything Stalinist involves Uncle Joe directly). A central idea of Maoism is the "bloc of the four classes"- an idea imposed on the CCP by the Comintern under Stalin/Bukharin. Also to be a Maoist you must believe that socialism in one country is possible, since China is assumed to have been the only socialist nation after the USSR and the glacis states went "revisionist". Also, the idea of cultural revolution, a fight against the bourgeoisie that's "in the party" involves buying heavily into Stalin's "aggravation of the class struggle under socialism" BS.

[Saorsa]

To be honest I think it's unnecessary and counterproductive to spend all this time fitting your views into a box labelled Stalinism/maoism/anarchism/trotskyism/IMT worshipper/whatever. The one thing all succesful revolutions have in common is their creative approach, that usually involves breaking with elements of previous ideologies.

There are far too many shibboleths on the radical left that do nothing but hold us back and prevent us from actually moving the struggle forward. The Maoists in Nepal are an excellent example of how by taking a creative approach that doesn't take blueprints from previous revolutions in other countries and rigidly apply them to you're own country, it is possible to actually make massive advances and even gain state power. We should all learn from their example.

[RadicalRadical]

it's okay to have your own opinions and like Mao yet disagree with Stalin's actions. Calling yourself "person"ist will get you into this kind of debates into the first place. Keep Mao as your avatar and just avoid calling yourself M-L-M if you don't want people going "A-HA! You call yourself Maoist but on 5 January you denounced comrade Stalin! PWND!!1!"

I am not a Maoist at all I am just interested in some of his ideas like the peasant revolution, but thats about it, I think the socialism in one country thing is a load of bull. I don't think my avatar is honoring the chairman either. :rolleyes:

[Gleb]

If you feel attracted towards certain aspects of Maoism while not being attracted to some others, go ahead. There is no need to be a sectarian, cherry-picking is no sin, it's almost the opposite, as inability to think beyond borders of one's own little section certainly isn't healthy view of the revolution.

[Black Sheep]

You don't have to "seek to be called" a maoist, or X or Y..
If you approve of ideas and proposals by revleftish ideological currents, then go ahead and support them (as long as they don't contradict themselves".

This whole name-tag thing pisses me off..:rolleyes:

[Harrycombs]

I will not buy your load of bull on Stalin, Winter, I am sorry, but I am never going to that side.

Did you read the entire thing Winter posted? Also, I strongly suggest reading Another View of Stalin if you haven't already.

[Black Sheep]

Did you read the entire thing Winter posted? Also, I strongly suggest reading Another View of Stalin if you haven't already.
I second that.

[politics student]

I was in the same boat as you at one point. I liked Mao, but still bought into the whole propaganda of Stalin being evil and contributing nothing. Here's some unbiased sources on Stalin you may want to read about:

http://www.plp.org/books/Stalin/book.html
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/stalin.html
http://www.stalinsociety.org.uk/

I agree, I liked Mao and it took a while for me to wake up to the importance Stalin had in history, while his 10 years of development came with a large human cost it was well worth it for the importance of stopping the fascists.

I do enjoy Mao's writing on cross class unification for an anti colonial movement.

What confuses me is the fact the US only joined the war after Japan attacked, did the fascists not hold rallies in the US? I remember an image of the American Eagle with the Nazi flag.

Saying that the UK had fascist supporting papers until the UK went to war.

[politics student]

I second that.

I third that.

I have got to the point where I consider Stalin to be the war hero of WW2 with out his economic development there was a good chance we would have lost ww2.

[chegitz guevara]

I strongly suggest reading Another View of Stalin if you haven't already.

I don't think anyone should read that book until they have enough knowledge to easily recognize it for the propaganda puff piece it is. The opening of the Soviet archives pretty much showed AVoS for the pack of lies it is. Not even the author defends it anymore.

That said, one does not have to like Stalin to be a Maoist. In fact, one does not even have to like Stalin to be a Stalinist. Stalinism, like Marxism is general, can be more than one thing. Marxism is a body of thought as well as a movement. Stalinism is both an ideology, as well as a set of practices. Many Trotskyists and anarchists act in Stalinist ways, using bureaucratic methods to achieve and maintain control.

[Valeofruin]

I have a question for Maoists and everybody, do you have to agree with Stalinist policy to be a Maoist? I cannot find clear answers on this. And why does there have to be conflict between Trotskyist strains of Communism and Maoist strains, besides the whole Stalin thing they actually have a lot in common. :confused:
I think that's up for you to decide. However I believe as you learn more about Maoism, you'll find Maoists have much more in common with Stalin then Trotsky, and you will find yourself warming up to Stalins policies relatively quickly.


I don't think anyone should read that book until they have enough knowledge to easily recognize it for the propaganda puff piece it is. The opening of the Soviet archives pretty much showed AVoS for the pack of lies it is. Not even the author defends it anymore.

oo almost had me, did a quick sweep.

By all means provide proof of your claims. Where has Ludo Martens ever said he no longer supports his book?

Im Afraid you'll want to source alot more of similar claims, because if I choose to continue posting here, I promise you, I will consistently attempt to disprove each and every one of them as little white lies, and attempt to discredit your movement, it's what I do.

P.S. Please, if you don't mind, could you perhaps link me to the thread where you guys broke down that book, and proved which facts were or were not true. I'd very much like to hear the explanaiton as to WHY it's propaganda, and what exactly was said that gave it such a status.

[chegitz guevara]

Oh, you're going to give me a headache.

Well, as for Martens no longer supporting his book, that's hearsay I picked up hear on RevLeft.

There is no thread of which I am aware, here on RevLeft that picks apart that piece of trash, however. I have read parts of the book, however, and quickly saw nothing but assertions that were contradicted by what I'd read from the Soviet archives. I suppose such a thread could be created, though.

[Valeofruin]

Oh, you're going to give me a headache.

Well, as for Martens no longer supporting his book, that's hearsay I picked up hear on RevLeft.

There is no thread of which I am aware, here on RevLeft that picks apart that piece of trash, however. I have read parts of the book, however, and quickly saw nothing but assertions that were contradicted by what I'd read from the Soviet archives. I suppose such a thread could be created, though.

By all means, pick it apart.

While your at it pick apart the analysis on the Stalin Societies website as well.

[Valeofruin]

www.stalinsociety.org.uk

[chegitz guevara]

Nope. Not interested in joining yet another forum. I spend too much time on the internet as it is.

[Valeofruin]

Nope. Not interested in joining yet another forum. I spend too much time on the internet as it is.

Its not a forum -_-

[Black Sheep]

What about the claims about Lenin's will? (about which troskyists go on talking and quoting it)
In AVoS it says:
aw nevermind , i will post in history.