Mao's grandson leads Maoist revival

[Chapaev]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/3236557/Mao-Zedongs-only-grandson-leads-Maoist-revival.html


Mao Xinyu, the 38-year-old sole grandson of the Great Helmsman, is set to become the dean of China's first undergraduate university department dedicated to the study of Mao Zedong thought.

Songtian University, a private college in Guangdong, has applied for permission to the Ministry of Education to found the new department, and enrolment is expected to begin next year.

Mr Mao has promised that, if the course is a success, he will roll it out nationwide. He said his grandfather's philosophy is applicable to a wide range of fields from politics to management.

"Unlike other people, I feel that I have a special historical responsibility and mission," Mr Mao told the People's Daily, a state newspaper. "Young people should learn more about the history of the Communist Party of China, so as to better understand the development of our mother country," he added.

He said his grandfather's mistakes, including the ten-year Cultural Revolution in the 1970s, were inevitable. "As the socialist road on which China embarked was unprecedented, no one could avoid making mistakes while groping for the way," he said. "Chairman Mao's initial intentions were not bad," he added.

Mao Zedong Thought is commonly thought of as the application of Marxist-Leninist ideology to the practical circumstances of the Chinese revolution.

Mr Mao's name, Xinyu, was given to him by his grandfather shortly before he died and means "new universe". He is the son of Mao Anqing, whose mother, Mao's second wife, was abandoned and then beheaded by He Jian, a local warlord. Mao Anqing and his two brothers escaped to Shanghai and spent some time living rough on the streets.

Mr Mao is currently the vice-director of the war theory and strategic research department of the People's Liberation Army Academy of Military Science. He is also a senior Communist Party member and his mother, Shao Hua, was a former chairman of Songtian University.

While there has been a compulsory course, entitled "An overview of Mao Zedong thought", in all mainland universities for years, the establishment of a specific department is a new step and demonstrates a growing affection for Mao among China's nationalistic youth.

A website, Maoflag.net, has become a popular forum for hardliners, while the government also issued a 16,800 RMB (£1,440) Mao coin made of gold and jade. Qin Juanying, vice chairman of Songtian University, said the department would "play a role in modern development and promote the Mao spirit".

[The Douche]

I could hardly see this being a "maoist revival" if he opposes the cultural revolution. I would say that the GPCR was the closest china ever got to establishing real socialism.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

Let's hope he can bring China closer to Maoist thought.

[RedHal]

The only possible maoist revival will have to be underground, anything involving mainstream institutions will be revisionist or it will be shut down by the CPC.

[Poum_1936]

So is the Maoist line that the Culture Revolution was a mistake or is this the opinion of Mao's grandson?

[Yehuda Stern]

You mean we could have a bunch of hardcore Stalinists taking over the country, bringing back state capitalism, putting it through decades of pain and misery, causing the death of millions, enriching themselves, and then going to market capitalism again? Awesome!

[The Douche]

You mean we could have a bunch of hardcore Stalinists taking over the country, bringing back state capitalism, putting it through decades of pain and misery, causing the death of millions, enriching themselves, and then going to market capitalism again? Awesome!

Come on now, secterianism aside, this exactly what the GPCR was trying to prevent. I am far from a maoist, but I can recognize that the GPCR was about putting the power in the hands of the people and trying to get them to put the party on the right track.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I could hardly see this being a "maoist revival" if he opposes the cultural revolution. I would say that the GPCR was the closest china ever got to establishing real socialism.

I agree.

The political basis for the cultural revolution (i.e. 'the class struggle continues even if the bourgeois have been fully appropriated') is an integral part of understanding the vital course that the socialist Chinese revolution had to take.

[Yehuda Stern]

This has nothing to do with sectarianism. It's that I'm honestly baffled about people fawning over dead leaders that have probably done much more to oppress and murder the workers than to help them.

Sure, the Chinese Revolution was a genuine revolution, unlike the ones in Eastern Europe - it was a partial democratic revolution, made by the peasants and enabled due to the crippling of both the ruling class and the workers. It is important to defend what remains of the gains of that revolution. But to do that, as history has shown, workers will have to fight against the Maoist capitalist regime and state, not support them.

And as for the GPCR, it was much less about putting power in the hands of the people and much more about allowing the people to let off some steam and take shots at the lower layers of the bureaucracy. Although not racist as far as I know, it's function was basically the same as that of anti-Semitic campaigns in the Soviet Union, Poland, and other Stalinist states.


The political basis for the cultural revolution (i.e. 'the class struggle continues even if the bourgeois have been fully appropriated') is an integral part of understanding the vital course that the socialist Chinese revolution had to take.

Never took you for a Maoist.

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was the exact opposite of a mistake: it was a magnificent example of People's power and genuine Socialism.
The capitalist revival attempt was quickly destroyed by the Proletarian Revolutionaries.

[La Comédie Noire]

The cultural revolution had unintended consequences, like real displays of worker's powers, which scared the hell out of the upper party.

[Yehuda Stern]

The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution was the exact opposite of a mistake: it was a magnificent example of People's power and genuine Socialism.
The capitalist revival attempt was quickly destroyed by the Proletarian Revolutionaries.

All that was destroyed was more of the democratic rights of the Chinese workers and elements of the CCP that were just as reactionary as Mao but opposed him.


The cultural revolution had unintended consequences, like real displays of worker's powers, which scared the hell out of the upper party.

Be that as it may, that's no reason to portray it as a revolution or as any thing that has to do with socialism.

[La Comédie Noire]

Be that as it may, that's no reason to portray it as a revolution or as any thing that has to do with socialism.


Yeah, I'm not, I'm agreeing with you. Mao wanted to oust some rival factions in the party, he got more than he bargained for.

[The Douche]

My point is that whether the GPCR went to far for Mao or not, it was the closest the chinese ever got to real socialism. I would say going farther than Mao wanted would even be a necessity in order to establish socialism.

And in my understanding of Maoism, taking things beyond where Mao wanted is in fact Maoist.

Yehuda said this:

You mean we could have a bunch of hardcore Stalinists taking over the country, bringing back state capitalism, putting it through decades of pain and misery, causing the death of millions, enriching themselves, and then going to market capitalism again? Awesome!

I thought that was directed at the GPCR, but looking back I think you meant that about the chinese revolution.

[Yehuda Stern]

Yeah, I'm not, I'm agreeing with you. Mao wanted to oust some rival factions in the party, he got more than he bargained for.

True. That's where the repression came in, I suppose.


I thought that was directed at the GPCR, but looking back I think you meant that about the chinese revolution.

It was my two-line summation of the history of China 1949-present, which naturally is pretty lax in detail.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Yeshuda,

I assume that you "didn't take me as a Maoist" since you underestimated what Maoist 'ideology' (if you can even call it that) truly is.

Mao's "people's war" is the quintessential military and political tactic that all progressive peoples adopting a revolutionary strategy and a nuanced understanding of the historical experience of Third World need to take up - the big bourgeois (despite of what 'liberals' say) are incapable of consistently waging a people's national resistance to oust foreign imperialists, and it is necessary for the proletariat (as the "greatest class") to lead such movements.

It seems to me that Trots generally do not evaluate the Chinese Revolution more critically. Marshal Peng Dehuai, far from being a simple "rival" that stood in Mao's way, had plans to "readjust" the agricultural co-operatives (and the People's Communes) to re-introduce elements of capitalism by allowing them to sell produce to local markets. He deviated from socialism by associating the GLF as a conceptual error - as opposed to a flaw in implementation - viewing small farms as 'superior' to collective farm work.

[black magick hustla]

what the hell labor shall rule,werent you a trot and then a christian and now a christian maoist

[Labor Shall Rule]

what the hell labor shall rule,werent you a trot and then a christian and now a christian maoist

I don't see how that is relevant to this thread.

l don't think you can make a narrow summation of Mao that would render his successes useless, but I don't think he offered significant enough contributions that would warrant the recognition of his own unique Marxism. His theory that class struggle continues in a socialist society is definitely not his own, but it was still a positive affirmation of a Lenin's understanding of the dictatorship of the proletariat.



Having overthrown the bourgeoisie and conquered political power, the proletariat has become the ruling class; it wields state power, it exercises control over means of production already socialised; it guides the wavering and intermediary elements and classes; it crushes the increasingly stubborn resistance of the exploiters.

A label of 'Marxist-Leninist' is good enough.

[Yehuda Stern]

I assume that you "didn't take me as a Maoist" since you underestimated what Maoist 'ideology' (if you can even call it that) truly is.

Well, no, you see. I'm just pretty sure you used to consider yourself a Trotskyist. And what Marmot said seems to confirm that.


Mao's "people's war" is the quintessential military and political tactic that all progressive peoples adopting a revolutionary strategy and a nuanced understanding of the historical experience of Third World need to take up - the big bourgeois (despite of what 'liberals' say) are incapable of consistently waging a people's national resistance to oust foreign imperialists, and it is necessary for the proletariat (as the "greatest class") to lead such movements.

1. If you mean numerically, then no, the proletariat was not the "greatest class" in China - the peasants were. Either way, they were the dominant force in Mao's army, not the workers.

2. In fact, Mao never advocated fighting against the influence of the bourgeoisie. He advocated a "bloc of four classes": workers, peasants, petty-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie, against imperialism. This expressed itself at first in an attempt to have the CCP rule jointly with representatives of the Chinese bourgeoisie and, having failed that, later on the subordination of the working class to the peasantry.


It seems to me that Trots generally do not evaluate the Chinese Revolution more critically.

On the contrary, I'm very critical of the leadership of that revolution (or, to be more accurate, would've been at the time). I believe the revolution has given some gains that must be defended, but that it was never proletarian or socialist, and that in order to defend what remains of the gains, as I said, "workers will have to fight against the Maoist capitalist regime and state, not support them."

[Labor Shall Rule]

Wasn't Trotsky's Red Army a 'peasant army' (demographically speaking)?

Mao never pimp-pushed collaboration with the class enemy—the "united front" was to defeat Japan, along with the bureaucrat-capitalists and landlords that were tied to foreign banks.

[Yehuda Stern]

Wasn't Trotsky's Red Army a 'peasant army' (demographically speaking)? The Red Army was a workers' army, as it was part of the armed forces of a workers' state - the large peasantry and the high proportion in army membership was part of the deformed character of this workers' state, which Lenin already recognized. Mao's army, however, was an army of peasants, in which the peasants had the lead role.


Mao never pimp-pushed collaboration with the class enemy—the "united front" was to defeat Japan, along with the bureaucrat-capitalists and landlords that were tied to foreign banks.Well, no. The alliance with the bourgeoisie was ideally supposed to last until China finished the obscure 'capitalist phase of development' that Stalinists are so fond of so that there could be a socialist revolution. Only the insistence of the majority of the bourgeoisie on not taking part in any sort of democratic revolution led Mao to conflicts with the KMT. Even then, though, Mao was very sympathetic to the capitalists. To quote Nigel Harris' Mandate of Heaven:

"The régime remained sympathetic to private businessmen. It paid compensation, guaranteed interest payments on the private capital appropriated, and it employed the former private businessmen at relatively high salaries as managers of the new joint or State enterprises. Initially, interest on capital was promised up to the end of the second plan (1963), but when many businessmen protested in the spring of 1957, the government relented and promised that interest payments would continue indefinitely.

Mao was similarly sympathetic when he addressed China’s leading businessmen in late 1956: “We have reformed all capitalist industrialists and businessmen, eliminating them as a class and taking them all into our fold as individuals ... we cannot say the bourgeoisie is useless to us; it is useful, very useful. The workers do not understand this because in the past, they have had conflicts with the capitalists in the factory. We should therefore explain the situation to the workers. Especially in view of the high tide of learning of the industrial and commercial circles and in view of your desire for learning, the workers would change their attitude towards you.”
[...]

Big business was much more important than small, which had “no decisive effect upon the nation’s life”. But would not people say, “the Chairman takes special care of the big capitalists but not the small capitalists. Is this Right opportunism?” Paying interest to big business on its capital would help to keep up output: “The small enterprises and workers will object. The workers will say we are making it too advantageous for the capitalists. In their opinion, the interest payments should be cancelled immediately.”

The workers would have to be convinced that “we should not do anything detrimental to the interests of the large capitalists for they are beneficial to the State ... Are we becoming a capitalist party? We have to explain to them that what we are doing is beneficial to the entire nation, to the workers, the peasants, the petty bourgeoisie, and the medium and small enterprises. They may not understand what ‘beneficial’ is at the moment.”"

Thus, Mao argued that giving privileges to big business, i.e. capitalists, at the expense of the workers and the petty-bourgeoisie is in fact in the interests of the workers, and should the workers disagree, they would have to be convinced otherwise. All this in 1956, when Japanese imperialism was busy building itself economically after the occupation, and had no army worth speaking of.

[The Author]

Mao Xinyu, the 38-year-old sole grandson of the Great Helmsman, is set to become the dean of China's first undergraduate university department dedicated to the study of Mao Zedong thought.

Looks like he's going to reduce "Mao Zedong Thought" to a subject of academia. I don't see any example in this article of Mao Xinyu actually advocating for some kind of revolutionary party or revolutionary movement.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Lenin is frustratingly unclear and often contradictory, but he viewed state-monopoly capitalism (as opposed to 'socialist' development) as a material preparation for socialism—there was a grain monopoly, state-controlled entrepreneurs and traders, and bourgeois co-operators even prior to the civil war. The linear transition through different modes of cultural and technological development in Russia was purely—hold your breath—capitalist in character. Lenin recognized that material conditions were not ripe for socialist revolution, and that if it was not internationalized, there would be no 'socialism'.

Mao, like Lenin, knew that they stood over a huge capitalist undertaking that became a monopoly to serve the whole nation—it was a revolutionary-democratic state that abolished privileges to undertake a directional leap in the development of the productive forces. I could provide quote snippets that would show Mao endorsing worker's control, or when, once again, he talks to commercial and industrial circles. It's simply a matter of political expediency - leading a relatively backwards country requires, in the long run though, an admission that material conditions limit the state of worker's control.

This similarity, that binds all upholders of revolutionary Marxism is that they admitted that "stageism" - in a indirect, quiet way - is the only step they could possibly take. The difference of Plekhanov, Dan or Chernov to Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, and Mao is that the former fetishize the fact that the workers and peasants should not and can not evenachieve those radical-democratic demands, while the latter are quite vocal with giving them the initiative and control to advance to a higher state of human development.

[Led Zeppelin]

Lenin is frustratingly unclear and often contradictory, but he viewed state-monopoly capitalism (as opposed to 'socialist' development) as a material preparation for socialism—there was a grain monopoly, state-controlled entrepreneurs and traders, and bourgeois co-operators even prior to the civil war. The linear transition through different modes of cultural and technological development in Russia was purely—hold your breath—capitalist in character. Lenin recognized that material conditions were not ripe for socialist revolution, and that if it was not internationalized, there would be no 'socialism'.

Actually he was not unclear or contradictory.

Trotsky explained it:


Lenin did actually apply the term “state capitalism” but not to the Soviet economy as a whole, only to a certain section of it: the foreign concessions, the mixed industrial and commercial companies and, in part, the peasant and largely kulak [rich peasant] cooperatives under state control. All these are indubitable elements of capitalism, but since they are controlled by the state, and even function as mixed companies through its direct participation, Lenin conditionally, or, according to his own expression, “in quotes,” called these economic forms “state capitalism.” The conditioning of this term depended upon the fact that a proletarian, and not a bourgeois, state was involved; the quotation marks were intended to stress just this difference of no little importance. However, insofar as the proletarian state allowed private capital and permitted it within definite restrictions to exploit the workers, it shielded bourgeois relations under one of its wings. In this strictly limited sense, one could speak of “state capitalism.”

Lenin came out with this very term at the time of the transition to the NEP, when he presupposed that the concessions and the “mixed companies,” that is, enterprises based upon the correlation of state and private capital, would occupy a major position in the Soviet economy alongside of the pure state trusts and syndicates. In contradistinction to the state capitalist enterprises – concessions, etc., that is – Lenin defined the Soviet trusts and syndicates as “enterprises of a consistently socialist type.” Lenin envisioned the subsequent development of Soviet economy, of industry in particular, as a competition between the state capitalist and the pure state enterprises.

We trust that it is clear now within what limits Lenin used this term that has led Urbahns into temptation. In order to round out the theoretical catastrophe of the leader of the “Lenin(!)bund,” we must recall that, contrary to Lenin’s original expectations, neither the concessions nor the mixed companies played any appreciable role whatsoever in the development of the Soviet economy. Nothing has now remained generally of these “state capitalist” enterprises. On the other hand, the Soviet trusts whose fate appeared so very murky at the dawn of the NEP underwent a gigantic development in the years after Lenin’s death. Thus, if one were to use Lenin’s terminology conscientiously and with some comprehension of the matter, one would have to say that the Soviet economic development completely bypassed the stage of “state capitalism” and unfolded along the channel of the enterprises of the “consistently socialist type.”

Here, however, we must also forestall any possible misunderstandings, and this time of just the opposite character. Lenin chose his terms with precision. He called the trusts not socialist enterprises, as the Stalinists now label them, but enterprises of the “socialist type.” Under Lenin’s pen, this subtle terminological distinction implied that the trusts will have the right to be called socialist not by type, not by tendency, that is, but by their genuine content – after the rural economy will have been revolutionized, after the contradiction between the city and the village will have been destroyed, after men will have learned to fully satisfy all human wants, in other words, only in proportion as a real socialist society would arise on the bases of nationalized industry and collectivized rural economy. Lenin conceived that the attainment of this goal would require the successive labors of two or three generations and, moreover, in indissoluble connection with the development of the international revolution.

To summarize: under state capitalism, in the strict sense of the word, we must understand the management of industrial and other enterprises by the bourgeois state on its own account, or the “regulating” intervention of the bourgeois state into the workings of private capitalist enterprises. By state capitalism “in quotes,” Lenin meant the control of the proletarian state over private capitalist enterprises and relations. Not one of these definitions applies from any side to the present Soviet economy. It remains a deep secret what concrete economic content Urbahns himself puts into his understanding of the Soviet “state capitalism.” To put it plainly, his newest theory is entirely built around a badly read quotation.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1933/10/sovstate.htm)

So, yeah, I think it's important not to make the same mistake as that Urbahns guy regarding Lenin's use of the term state-capitalism.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Trotsky is wrong. In fact, he's saying that 'state-monopoly capitalism' refers to the sanctioned private capitalist firms that developed after the NEP. Lenin did not make an ideological retreat after the NEP insofar as recognizing what the system was economically. The 'worker's state' was what was politically in control, but state-monopoly capitalism was the dominant economic form.



That capitalism in Russia has also become monopoly capitalism is sufficiently attested by the examples of the Produgol, the Prodamet, the Sugar Syndicate, etc. This Sugar Syndicate is an object-lesson in the way monopoly capitalism develops into state-monopoly capitalism.

It is impossible to stand still in history in general, and in war-time in particular. We must either advance or retreat. It is impossible in twentieth-century Russia, which has won a republic and democracy in a revolutionary way, to go forward without advancing towards socialism, without taking steps towards it (steps conditioned and determined by the level of technology and culture: large-scale machine production cannot be "introduced" in peasant agriculture nor abolished in the sugar industry).

The dialectics of history is such that the war, by extraordinarily expediting the transformation of monopoly capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism, has thereby extraordinarily advanced mankind towards socialism.
And what is the state? It is an organisation of the ruling class — in Germany, for instance, of the Junkers and capitalists. And therefore what the German Plekhanovs (Scheidemann, Lensch, and others) call "war-time socialism" is in fact war-time state-monopoly capitalism, or, to put it more simply and clearly, war-time penal servitude for the workers and war-time protection for capitalist profits.It was of a 'socialist type' since it was set-up by a proletarian state, but it was still state-monopoly capitalism. Hence, Trotsky wrongly conflated the state-monopoly capitalist enterprises with 'socialism' itself.

[Led Zeppelin]

Trotsky is wrong. In fact, he's saying that 'state-monopoly capitalism' refers to the sanctioned private capitalist firms that developed after the NEP.

No he didn't:


Lenin came out with this very term at the time of the transition to the NEP

That doesn't say "after", that says "at the time of the transition to". Did you even read what was posted before you decided to reply to it?


Lenin did not make an ideological retreat after the NEP insofar as recognizing what the system was economically.

Well it's pretty hard for Lenin to have "made an ideological retreat after the NEP" since he wasn't alive after the NEP. However, he did believe that the future of the state-capitalist enterprises was to be much bigger than it would actually be, he was wrong about this:



we must recall that, contrary to Lenin’s original expectations, neither the concessions nor the mixed companies played any appreciable role whatsoever in the development of the Soviet economy. Nothing has now remained generally of these “state capitalist” enterprises. On the other hand, the Soviet trusts whose fate appeared so very murky at the dawn of the NEP underwent a gigantic development in the years after Lenin’s death. Thus, if one were to use Lenin’s terminology conscientiously and with some comprehension of the matter, one would have to say that the Soviet economic development completely bypassed the stage of “state capitalism” and unfolded along the channel of the enterprises of the “consistently socialist type.”


It was of a 'socialist type' since it was set-up by a proletarian state

He didn't refer to state-capitalist enterprises as being "of the socialist type", that's a contradiction. He referred to the enterprises of the socialist type...as being of the socialist type:


In contradistinction to the state capitalist enterprises – concessions, etc., that is – Lenin defined the Soviet trusts and syndicates as “enterprises of a consistently socialist type.”

Again, did you read what was posted before you replied to it?


Hence, Trotsky wrongly conflated the state-monopoly capitalist enterprises with 'socialism' itself.

No, hence you didn't bother to read what was posted.

Trotsky actually literally says the opposite of what you just "henced" so proudly about:


Here, however, we must also forestall any possible misunderstandings, and this time of just the opposite character. Lenin chose his terms with precision. He called the trusts not socialist enterprises, as the Stalinists now label them, but enterprises of the “socialist type.” Under Lenin’s pen, this subtle terminological distinction implied that the trusts will have the right to be called socialist not by type, not by tendency, that is, but by their genuine content – after the rural economy will have been revolutionized, after the contradiction between the city and the village will have been destroyed, after men will have learned to fully satisfy all human wants, in other words, only in proportion as a real socialist society would arise on the bases of nationalized industry and collectivized rural economy. Lenin conceived that the attainment of this goal would require the successive labors of two or three generations and, moreover, in indissoluble connection with the development of the international revolution.

My guess is that you skimmed over the quote, thought you had it figured out, and decided to post a reply to it. In the future please don't do this, as you can see it forces me to repeat myself, and that's something I'd rather try to avoid because it can be easily prevented.

[Sendo]

I wonder if this will be some antiquarian tea party ("All About Mao") or a serious effort to undo the damage from Deng and his successors. I can't get a good read from the article.

[Yehuda Stern]

LSR: How does any of that address the fact that your claim that Mao wanted a united front only until the Japanese were defeated is obviously false?

[Forward Union]

now that china is industrialising emphasis should be placed on unionising the new proletariat into an industrial union. Preferably the IWW.

Im not too bothered what the policies of the CPC are or if they're progressive revisionist or whatever. All I know is that the conditions that the workers endure are far below those acceptable for human beings, and the best way they can achieve better conditions is by fighting their corner, in unions and comunity associations.

Our maoist comrades should be on this side of the fence helping build a new grassroots workers movement, that stands up for itself.

[Revy]

I think there is a future for socialism in China, and I think many in China know that their system is actually capitalist. I don't think Maoism is going to offer any solutions.

There have been explorations of alternative, more democratic Marxist tendencies. In 2006, the International Rosa Luxemburg Conference was held in Wuhan, China (http://paulleblanc.laroche.edu/index_files/page0005.htm).

[Abluegreen7]

I wonder if this will be some antiquarian tea party ("All About Mao") or a serious effort to undo the damage from Deng and his successors. I can't get a good read from the article.
A tea party?

Well I hope the Tea tastes good.

[Labor Shall Rule]

"At the time to transition to?" It's within the concessionary period (generally associated with the NEP).

Trotsky (as I've said) mischaracterizes Lenin - he stated that concessions were the only mingling of capitalist forms of production that were under the state monopoly. The state-monopoly capitalism refers directly to large scale soviet enterprises controlled directly by the party-state - Lenin wrote that it was the dominant economic form as early as 1918 (in The Impending Crisis and How to Combat It and Can We Go Foward if we Fear to Advance Towards Socialism?). He understood it as 'statification', not as the legalization of petty-capitalism and other forms.

Trotsky is distorting the meaning of Lenin's decree that the enterprises were socialist in type, but not 'socialistic' as in socialism. Vladimir clearly used 'socialism' and 'communism' in an expedient and pragmatic way. It'd be intolerable to upgrade the label of capitalism (even if it is, indeed, state-controlled) to a 'progressive' level - they just, after all, spent over ten years talking about how the entire system was incapable of being progressive anymore. Moreover, it'd also mean an admission that the Mensheviks were correct insofar that the material conditions are concerned. It'd be a refersing of the political partisanship of October, which many leading Bolsheviks (including Trotsky) had a deep emotional connection to.

Yeshuda,

Because the quantitative expansion of the means of production can not continue if they are under foreign control - a relatively backwards post-war-ravaged economy must defeat imperialism and carry out capitalist development.

[Yehuda Stern]

Because the quantitative expansion of the means of production can not continue if they are under foreign control - a relatively backwards post-war-ravaged economy must defeat imperialism and carry out capitalist development.

So, you do admit that you were very wrong to say that Mao only supported an alliance with the bourgeoisie up to the defeat of Japan?

[Labor Shall Rule]

So, you do admit that you were very wrong to say that Mao only supported an alliance with the bourgeoisie up to the defeat of Japan?

Yeah, but I didn't just say that lol, I added "along with the bureaucrat-capitalists and landlords that were tied to foreign banks." (aka - fight imperialism and develop domestic capitalism)

[Yehuda Stern]

Well congratulations - that's what happened. To a point. The Maoists industrialized China, but didn't and couldn't free it from the hold of imperialism. To this day Chinese workers suffer the most terrible forms of exploitation and oppression under the Maoist regime.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Yes, the Bolsheviks industrialized Russia but didn't free it from the hold of imperialism. A counterrevolution happen. The pro-Maoists were overthrown, and Deng Xiao-ping systematically dismantled the public sector.

[Saorsa]

To this day Chinese workers suffer the most terrible forms of exploitation and oppression under the Maoist regime.

No they don't. The Maoist regime was overthrown in the late 70s. The current regime is in no way Maoist.

Maoism advocates the protection of the national bourgeoisie by the People's Republic during the New Democratic revolution i.e. the anti-feudal, anti-imperialist revolution that aims to develop the productive forces and the property relations to the point where the material basis for socialist revolution exists. When Maoists speak of "the people" or "the masses" in the context of a Third World, semi-feudal and semi-colonial country, they are referring to the proletariat, the peasantry, the urban petit-bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie. The alliance between the workers and peasants is the fundamental and most important one, with the alliance between the toiling masses and the urban petit-bourgeoisie coming next and the alliance between the progressive forces and the patriotic capitalists coming in last.

So yeah, Mao advocated the alliance with the national-bourgeoisie to continue after the revolution, but to be gradually ended as the socialist revolution develops to a greater and greater degree. Socialism can only be fully developed on a world scale, so to attack Mao for not totally abolishing capitalism in all it's forms in China is not being fair.

In the People's Republic, the national-bourgeoisie exists under the supervision and sufferance of the revolutionary government and it's state apparatus. Capitalism is not allowed to run rampant, it is supervised and developed side by side with the socialist economy, with it's negative effects being mitigated by the state (the Iron Rice Bowl in China, for example).

Obviously the implementation of this in the 20th century did not succeed and the Maoist regime was eventually overthrown, but the Maoist approach and the theory of New Democracy remain, in my opinion, the most relevant and realistic approach for revolutionaries in a Third World country.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

This sounds like the kind of "Maoist revival" which the current Chinese regime would totally approve of...especially the part where the grandson attacks the Cultural Revolution.

[KC]

now that china is industrialising emphasis should be placed on unionising the new proletariat into an industrial union. Preferably the IWW.

Unofficial unions are illegal in China, which will make it much more difficult, although I certainly agree with you on the idea of setting up "red" unions where independent ones don't exist. The "official" unions obviously aren't really unions at all, and are completely irrelevant to any real workers' movement (actually, since they're a means of controlling the workers, they're basically enemies).

[Wanted Man]

This sounds like the kind of "Maoist revival" which the current Chinese regime would totally approve of...especially the part where the grandson attacks the Cultural Revolution.
Yeah, I was thinking about that. Appropriating historical figures in order to justify the current status. Like how in the Netherlands, we learn about the Republic and its achievements, but only as a means for further honour and glory for the current monarchy. Or Putin's Russia walking away with Stalin, the Great Patriotic War, etc.

If such a revolutionary alternative in China wants to get anywhere, it should go to the class that is revolutionary, the proletariat. Not simply establish a study group for a 'historical canon' of 'great leaders'.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Songtian University, a private college in Guangdong, has applied for permission to the Ministry of Education to found the new department

spot the irony!

[Yehuda Stern]

Yes, the Bolsheviks industrialized Russia but didn't free it from the hold of imperialism. A counterrevolution happen. The pro-Maoists were overthrown, and Deng Xiao-ping systematically dismantled the public sector.

I'm not really following this - are we talking about Russia or China? Anyway, the Bolsheviks did free Russia from imperialism - this is what enabled the counterrevolution to make Russia an imperialist state and not a third world country.


No they don't. The Maoist regime was overthrown in the late 70s. The current regime is in no way Maoist.


I don't see how and when the Maoist regime was overthrown. The same party and the same people continued to rule the state. Unlike Russia, there was no destruction of the old party and its cadres. (Unless you care to enlighten me.)

[Labor Shall Rule]

I'm equating the two.

And are you joking? All political questions are super-structural (or, secondary) are dependent variables, are the effect and not the cause. It's hereby irrelevant to say that 'counterrevolution' has to be identical (i.e. the party must be overthrown) in all situations.

[Yehuda Stern]

It is a basic idea of Marxism that a ruling class cannot be replaced without a social revolution. When the ruling class and ruling party remain the same, there can be no talk of counterrevolution.

[Labor Shall Rule]

It is a basic idea of Marxism that a ruling class cannot be replaced without a social revolution. When the ruling class and ruling party remain the same, there can be no talk of counterrevolution.

The Dengists and "gradualists" (after ousting Jiang Qing) carried out massive reprisals of revolutionary Maoists that existed within the Party. In Shanghai and Tianjin, workshop newspapers were shut-down for violating the 'party-line', and criticism was banned from the universities. The lower-cadres that once arose to challenge unfair management practices, and even encourage levels of worker's control, were rooted out and sent to labor camps.

If I may appropriate Trotsky's quote for my purposes, the "purge draws between Marxists and revisionists not simply a blood line, but a whole river of blood."

The article (while showing how state-sanctioned 'revolutionary' theory can be appropriated) also shows a renewed interest in Mao's writings. The international crisis hurt credit-tied manufactering enterprises, such as the steel and petrochemical sectors, leading to lay-offs never before seen. It also means an annual decline of wages. This has lead to (inevitably) a shift in intellectual circles from neoliberal orthodoxy to more left-oriented theories.