The Little Red Book

[Prairie Fire]

really wanted to order the Shock Doctrine and the Little Red Book, but I dont know if Ill get kicked out of my dorms or not


The little red book is over rated; I have a few kicking around, and they are a cool conversation piece, but really not that profound.

[Rawthentic]

In your opinion it may be overrated. It isnt profound in that it doesnt have long deep writings, but what it has to say have profound implications and served to train thousands of communists in China and around the world (including many in the US).

[Prairie Fire]

In your opinion it may be overrated.


Possibly the reason I said that :rolleyes:.




It isnt profound in that it doesnt have long deep writings, but what it has to say have profound implications and served to train thousands of communists in China and around the world (including many in the US).


It trained millions around the world (myself included, at one time,) in dogma. Rather than presenting arguments, it presents "talking points" and inconsequential minutia from the great helmsman.

Because it often only presents one - three sentences from the chairman, there is rarely discussion about the "Why" behind any theoretical positions, so the entire rationale behind every position in the book becomes "...Because Chairman Mao said so."

Now, if this book was simply the written form of the party line and stances of the CPC, fair enough, but it was distributed internationally as a theoretical text, rather than as a confucian-style tome of answers to all questions.



The LRB isn't supposed to be some heavy theoretical work,


That is how it was presented to international Marxist-Leninists. Any document that simply espouses dogmatic musings from a communist ideologist is of no interest to the advancement of socialism. Remember, there was also another book published of quotations from Marx-Stalin, but I'm sure that that was also a curiosity piece, not a serious manifesto.

I'm not simply working backwards from the fact that Mao was a revisionist; I recognize him as a revolutionary figure (not Marxist,), and he did write many serious theoretical texts (flawed as they may be,), and his works on contradictions are actually pretty good.

The Little Red book, on the other hand, doesn't teach anyone the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism. The revolutionary forces of the world require a revolutionary theory, not "talking points", so if this book does not espouse revolutionary theory, it is irrelevant to the struggle.


but there's lots to learn from it

It is entertaining reading, but it is not actionable.


and it's inspired millions.

So has the Bible :rolleyes:.
The distribution of the little red book is not in question, only it's content.

No need to get defensive, comrade; my criticism is a Marxist-Leninist criticism, not gratuitous cheap shots cause "Mao kild milyunz OMFG !!!!" .

If you read the last part of Imperialism and the Revolution by Enver Hoxha, he explains the flaws of Maoism clearer than I can.

Anyways, I advise all comrades here to order a copy of Imperialism and the Revolution from this bookstore (or from us, when we start printing them).

[Sankofa]

edit

[Prairie Fire]

It's a theoretical work in the sense that it gives the reader a significant introduction to Maoist thought


A bit perhaps, but once again, there is no "Why", no reasoning behind any of the entries in the little red book, just assertions about the correct courses of action without explanation.



If one is still interested in learning at a much deeper level after reading the book, every speech and work is cited at the end of each quote; so if you're interested in learning more about the theory, there you are.


But, you could just read the referenced theoretical texts to begin with. The Little Red blook is therefore unnecesary.



I fail to see how the LRB is simply "dogmatic musings" that have no interest in advancing socialism, especially considering that Mao advanced socialism in China further than anyone to this day before or since his death.


That's a non-sequiter. While the "socialist" status of the PRC since it's inception is debatable (see Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and the Revolution), the Chinese revolution and the progressive gains that followed came before the little red book rather than proceeding from it ( the LRB wasn't published until 1966, I believe).



The very first chapter, in the first first page, in the very first quote expresses how the theoretical basis of the Chinese Communist Party is Marxism-Leninism.


Right, but that is a statement, not a thesis. When Mao says "the force at the core leading our cause forward is the Chinese communist party" and the "the theoretical basis guiding our thinking is Marxism-Leninism", that is not instructive in the least.
Now, other documents exist in detail (some from the HU,) that document that this sentence right here is a falsehood, but my point is that the little red book is not instructive, is not theoretical in nature. It may provide correct stances on issues, but it doesn't explain where those positions originated from, or why they are the correct stances to take.



Also, the book is actually one of the biggest pieces of revolutionary theory ever published


That is also a statement, not a thesis :lol:.


I can appreciate and attempt to understand any valid criticisms that people hold towards Mao.

Fair enough; my criticisms are genuine and meant to be informed, and I mean no animosity.


Actually, since you recommended me the Hoxha works the last time, I've been meaning to read it, but I've been busy reading other things and with work and school.


Good to hear, good to hear.



I don't mean to hijack Comrade NHIA's thread, so we can agree to disagree, or split the discussion if you'd like.


True. I apologize to NHIA, and it would be beneficial for a mod to split this thread.

[Jorge Miguel]

If you read the last part of Imperialism and the Revolution by Enver Hoxha, he explains the flaws of Maoism clearer than I can.
Replace one dogma with another? Hoxha claims in the text in question that Mao wanted to "rule the world". Granted, some of Hoxha's criticisms are valid but IATR is a very dogmatic text and full of rhetoric. They are also highly opportunistic - why did he not make these criticisms when Mao was alive?

[Pogue]

So Mao isn't worth reafing but some other capitalist dictator called Hoxha is?

I love Marx-Leninism.

[Hessian Peel]

So Mao isn't worth reafing but some other capitalist dictator called Hoxha is?

How were Mao and Hoxha "capitalist dictators"?

[Jorge Miguel]

So Mao isn't worth reafing but some other capitalist dictator called Hoxha is?

I love Marx-Leninism.
China under Mao and Albania under Hoxha were more democratic (as we understand it) than Russia under Lenin. Don't let that get in the way of your dogma though.

[Pogue]

More democratic than Russia under Lenin? Wow, thats an acheivment. Funny that you'd say I have dogma, I'm not the one blindly following the teachings of a party or 'leader'. Still, lets not let that get in the way of your idol worshipping.

[Hessian Peel]

More democratic than Russia under Lenin? Wow, thats an acheivment. Funny that you'd say I have dogma, I'm not the one blindly following the teachings of a party or 'leader'. Still, lets not let that get in the way of your idol worshipping.

Where's the "idol worshiping"?

Comrade Topulli simply pointed out that while the PRC and SPRA were still socialist they were more democratic than the formative years of the USSR, and probably throughout its entire history. Especially the PRC.

[Chapter 24]

So Mao isn't worth reafing but some other capitalist dictator called Hoxha is?

I love Marx-Leninism.

"Capitalist dictator"? Really? Do you honestly believe what you're saying? It's one thing to make a critique on socialist leaders and politicians based on their poor decision-making or suppose "authoritarianism", but when you exaggerate to the point where you're just lying, that doesn't exactly raise your credibility level. How exactly were Mao and Hoxha capitalists, at all?

[Pogue]

They were dictators over capitalist systems.

[Hessian Peel]

They were dictators over capitalist systems.

No they weren't.

[Chapter 24]

:blink: I'll give you that neither the PRC nor Albania had full worker's control, but there was no private ownership over the means of production. In the case of the PRC Deng Xiaoping introduced "reforms" that brought China to a hybrid of a market and socialized economy, reintroducing capitalism after it's defeat of two decades.
When you talk about "capitalist dictators" it only implies that there was no difference between the economies of the Eastern Bloc and their allies. Is there really no difference between the economies of the United States and the PRC? Or that of Yugoslavia, which took in western foreign capital, versus Albania, which was an isolated nation following the Sino-Albanian split?

[Pogue]

What were they if not capitalist? State control isn't socialism.

[JimmyJazz]

If you didn't know what other things there are besides capitalism and socialism, why didn't you ask, instead of spouting off?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deformed_workers'_state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deformed_workers%27_state)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalist

To name a few. They weren't capitalist, because production wasn't carried out for profit, it was centrally planned. At the same time [some say] they weren't socialist because [some say] they didn't practice workers' control of production.

[Hessian Peel]

The PRC was socialist.

[JimmyJazz]

Maybe, I don't know much about China. OK, nothing. I'll edit my last post.

[Hessian Peel]

Maybe, I don't know much about China. OK, nothing. I'll edit my last post.

No bother comrade. :thumbup1:

[Jorge Miguel]

More democratic than Russia under Lenin? Wow, thats an acheivment.Aye, and on another point, the economy under Stalin was entirely socialised and agriculture collectivised.


I'm not the one blindly following the teachings of a party or 'leader'. Still, lets not let that get in the way of your idol worshipping.Where?

[Jorge Miguel]

They were dictators over capitalist systems.Evidence?

[Sankofa]

edit.