Maoism good politlical standing or not

[Brother No. 1]

Comrades in your voice is Maoism good for the people and give your reason also for I want to hear what you feel

[Pogue]

I don't think it is because it is too complex, full of dogma, rushed together and some of its conclusions are somewhat skewed, such as the fact many Maoists believe the developed world has no revolutionary potential.

I think the whole theory was created to justify what Mao was doing.

Plus Maoism encourages capitalist developement in third world countries and I think thats dangerous and doomed to fail.

[Brother No. 1]

that is true mao did not take time to have a better system for he created it a few days after he won the civil war

[Kassad]

Maoism heavily relies on the agricultural side of the class conflict which, frankly, doesn't apply in the sense that industrial class struggle does. In the United States, much of the agricultural world is strictly conservative and results in recent elections prove that point. Though there is need for unity between both groups, it's obvious which one has become more relevant in the present day.

Plus, Maoism relies on the cult of personality around the figurehead of the Party which does nothing but promote an elitist viewpoint. An irrelevant ideology, in my opinion.

[The Douche]

the fact many Maoists believe the developed world has no revolutionary potential.

This is not a fact. Third worldists are a minority.


Plus Maoism encourages capitalist developement in third world countries and I think thats dangerous and doomed to fail.

This is not true, Maoists do not fight for capitalism.


mao did not take time to have a better system for he created it a few days after he won the civil war

Where did you hear this? Its absurd.


Maoism heavily relies on the agricultural side of the class conflict which, frankly, doesn't apply in the sense that industrial class struggle does. In the United States, much of the agricultural world is strictly conservative and results in recent elections prove that point. Though there is need for unity between both groups, it's obvious which one has become more relevant in the present day.

No maoism does not rely heavily on the peasantry, it relies upon the exploited class in the nation in which the movement exists. For China, this meant peasantry, but all Maoists acknowledge that the urban proletariat must play the leading role in the revolution. "Agriculture" especially in the first world has nothing to do with peasantry either. Maoism has made important contributions to the Leninist paradigm, and to say that it is just "socialism with peasants" or something is absurd.



That being said, I think Maoism is the wrong answer, but we shouldn't make baseless criticism. Hopefully a Maoist will come along and provide a better defense of the ideology than I can.

[Pogue]

Hopefully they will. Am I wrong then in saying Maoists encourage capitalist developement in the third world? I heard that from a pro-Nepalese Maoist comrade a few weeks back on this very forum.

[Brother No. 1]

well i heard my comments from internet but then again the internet sometimes lies but I'm a maosit to a extent

[The Douche]

Hopefully they will. Am I wrong then in saying Maoists encourage capitalist developement in the third world? I heard that from a pro-Nepalese Maoist comrade a few weeks back on this very forum.

Well I'm not an expert on Nepal, but don't the Maoists hold a narrow majority in parliament there? They acknowledge that they need to develop industry to effectively create socialism so they are going about doing that, and the method they (may) have chosen to to work with the bourgeois elements in parliament. But this is a demonstration of the Nepalases Maoists, and not necessarily Maoism in general. I would be very hesitant to say that Mao used or encouraged capitalism in the PRC.

My understanding of Maoism is that it is very much rooted in adapting to the material conditions of the environment in which it exists, hence the Maoism of the Black Panther Party is very different from the Maoism of the French students of 68.

[Kassad]

No maoism does not rely heavily on the peasantry, it relies upon the exploited class in the nation in which the movement exists. For China, this meant peasantry, but all Maoists acknowledge that the urban proletariat must play the leading role in the revolution. "Agriculture" especially in the first world has nothing to do with peasantry either. Maoism has made important contributions to the Leninist paradigm, and to say that it is just "socialism with peasants" or something is absurd.

From what I've read about Maoism, it places heavy emphasis on the rural countryside and using it to contribute to guerilla warfare. It's common sense that the proletariat will rise up against whatever class is exploiting them. Is it really necessary to state such an obvious fact?

[The Douche]

From what I've read about Maoism, it places heavy emphasis on the rural countryside and using it to contribute to guerilla warfare. It's common sense that the proletariat will rise up against whatever class is exploiting them. Is it really necessary to state such an obvious fact?

Don't confuse protracted people's war (a military strategy developed by Mao) with Maosim (a tendency of communist thought derived from Lenin).

Is it really common sense that the proletariat will "rise up"? Cause I'm still waiting for this to happen...

If the peasants are the majority exploited class then they are the force for revolutionary change.

[Pogue]

Don't confuse protracted people's war (a military strategy developed by Mao) with Maosim (a tendency of communist thought derived from Lenin).

Is it really common sense that the proletariat will "rise up"? Cause I'm still waiting for this to happen...

If the peasants are the majority exploited class then they are the force for revolutionary change.

Traditional Marxism tends to sideline the peasantry because their loyalties are supposed to be less defined and they have less conciousness. Anarchists and Lib Coms tend to be more receptive to the peasants, i.e. in Anarchist Spain where the peasants were organised and militant as well as the proletarians.

[The Douche]

Traditional Marxism tends to sideline the peasantry because their loyalties are supposed to be less defined and they have less conciousness. Anarchists and Lib Coms tend to be more receptive to the peasants, i.e. in Anarchist Spain where the peasants were organised and militant as well as the proletarians.

:confused:

Yes...

[FreeFocus]

Aside from my belief in a modified version of Third Worldism, my critiques of Maoism are similar to my critiques of other forms of authoritarian Communism, in addition to the frightening and more prominent cult of personality present in Maoism.

[Hiero]

I don't think it is because it is too complex, full of dogma, rushed together and some of its conclusions are somewhat skewed, such as the fact many Maoists believe the developed world has no revolutionary potential.

Rushed together? What does this mean?

And Mao actually thought that there was revolutionary potential in the first world. It was Lin Biao who first said that revolution in the first world was held back. It is later Marxist economicist who first explored Lenin's thesis on imperialism focusing on the the lack of revolutionary potentional of first world workers due to higher wages and comftable living standards.

There have been many Maoist, including the RCP-USA who take Mao's view. The Lin Biao view is in a minority.


Plus Maoism encourages capitalist developement in third world countries and I think thats dangerous and doomed to fail.

Not necessarily. It just doesn't attempt to create a socialist revolution in a country that has no potentional. This is was one of the errors of Pol Pot, he thought collectivisation of whatever was available equaled socialism.

The peasanty question has been answered. But some points have not been addressed. I think the greatest point is that the peasantry existed in dominant numbers. There was a huge divide between country and city. Mao simply addressed this issue, in everyway Mao's policy whether they failed or not attempted to address the poor conditions of the rural area. In this way the peasantry would have been abolished as the difference between rural and urban abolished and what would have emerged was a rural proleteriat over a long period of time.

Also take note that industry was spread throughout China's rural areas.

Cult of personality isn't strickly Maoist. Lin Biao promoted cult of personalty, and so did other Communist's during the cultural revolution. However I have been told that the gang of four (Jiang Qing, Zhang Chunqiao, Yao Wenyuan and Wang Hongwen) all opposed cult of personality and proposed closer grass roots glorification and Mao's image not be so prominent. I have to look this up and try to find first person article's or speaches of the conflict between Lin Biao and the gang of four.

I think people have to understand that Maoism as historical term is quite complex. During the cultural revolution there were mulitple sides of the conflict, even including inside what could be considered the Maoist faction. Who are the true Maoist, Lin Biao, Gang of Four, Mao, Chen Boda, Zhou EnLai? Or what about the late economist who could be accepted as Maoist, like Samir Amin or Aghiri Emmanuel who said the proleteriat are massed in the 3rd world and modern revolution begins there? Or is Bob Avakian who proposes peoples war in the USA a true Maoist?

I think generally the West does not allow for the conflicts within Maoism to be shown and understood. Generally because Western acadamia can not understand the complexities of China's Communist history, including the cultural revolution, so they reduce Mao and Maoism to a simple orientalism. I think lots of people on this sight do the same, the reduce Mao and Maoism to an orientalism. They do not understand conflict, it is just all the same. The oriental dictator demanded everything to stay in power, and thoose below him but closest all scurried to attain power. And of course the Chinese people are too stupid and brainwashed to have their own autonomy.

[Comrade B]

I think that Maoism is definitely efficient at setting itself up, and I respect most Maoists in that from experience I see that they have an understanding of real communism, however I still believe that the philosophy has some major flaws in it's willingness to make different changes at different paces, such as eradicating capitalism from society and cultural reform

[BobKKKindle$]

Maoists do not believe that the peasantry is capable of leading the revolutionary struggle or that the peasantry is the only revolutionary class, but recognize that in countries suffering from a lack of industrial development due to the effects of imperialism, the numerical weakness of the proletariat means that the revolution can only be brought about through a broad alliance led by the proletariat (as the only class with a direct material interest in overthrowing capitalism) but also involving other oppressed classes such as the impoverished peasantry as well as the radical section of the petty-bourgeoisie. This is expressed by Mao as follows:

"Though not very numerous, the industrial proletariat represents China's new productive forces, is the most progressive class in modern China and has become the leading force in the revolutionary movement"

Analysis of Classes in Chinese Society, March 1926 (http://www.marx2mao.com/Mao/AC26.html)

In this respect, both Mao and Trotsky developed similar insights concerning the strategy revolutionaries should adopt in the periphery. Unlike Trotskyists, however, proponents of Maoism believe that the class alliance should also extend to the national bourgeoisie (i.e. the section of the bourgeoisie hostile to imperialism and willing to participate in national economic development) and the immediate aim of the revolution should be to establish "new democracy", under which the "commanding heights" of the economy will be taken into state ownership but at the same time other sectors of the economy will remain in private hands and open to foreign investment as a means to accumulate the material and technological resources necessary to construct socialism. By contrast, Trotskyists argue that only international revolution can provide the conditions for socialism because the processes of imperialism have transformed the entire world into a single integrated economic unit, and so any attempts to construct socialism within the borders of one country will ultimately fail.

[Kassad]

Don't confuse protracted people's war (a military strategy developed by Mao) with Maosim (a tendency of communist thought derived from Lenin).

Is it really common sense that the proletariat will "rise up"? Cause I'm still waiting for this to happen...

If the peasants are the majority exploited class then they are the force for revolutionary change.

Likely ignorance on my part. Maoism is definitely not my strongest point. Either way, all of us here believe that it is "common sense." We're not saying that it's going to happen now or at a specific date, but there will be a point in which the bourgeoisie bandaging the capitalist system will fail to solve problems like it has been in the past. You can only push people so far, but the bourgeoisie and the owners of the means of production consistently come up with ways to disguise the flaws of the system, such as the current bailouts in the United States.

[The Douche]

Likely ignorance on my part. Maoism is definitely not my strongest point. Either way, all of us here believe that it is "common sense." We're not saying that it's going to happen now or at a specific date, but there will be a point in which the bourgeoisie bandaging the capitalist system will fail to solve problems like it has been in the past. You can only push people so far, but the bourgeoisie and the owners of the means of production consistently come up with ways to disguise the flaws of the system, such as the current bailouts in the United States.

So you think it is inevitable that the proletariat will rise up, smash the bourgeoisie and create a new world? That nothing can stop this?

I think thats absurd, I think lots of things can stop it, like nuclear war, environmental destruction returning us to a pre-industrial society, or more emminent things, like reform which take the fight out of the revolutionary groups of people.

I don't think there is anything inevitable about revolution. I think capitalism creates the conditions that make revolution necessary, but I don't think it will automatically happen just because the conditions exist.

[Pogue]

:confused:

Yes...

If you don't understand, post you're own thread in the learning forum, or PM me.

[The Douche]

If you don't understand, post you're own thread in the learning forum, or PM me.

No it just seems like kind of a stating of the obvious and not relevant to the discussion at hand. Thats why I agreed but with the confused face.

[TC]

A lot of the posts here seem to be speaking of Maoism as if its a coherent theory when really its a tendency, a tradition, and a disputed label. Political factions across the whole spectrum of chinese politics identify with Mao while disagreeing with aspects of what he said/did (naturally Mao himself renounced much of what he did/said and a tradition of self-criticism is part of Maoism). Everyone from a red guard to a 'red capitalist' and inbetween has a certain claim to Maoism.

The same I think might be said of trotskyism except that, Trotsky at least seemed to have a fairly consistent and specific theoretical agenda to the extent that you can at least argue about which 'trotskyists' are really promoting 'trotskyism.'

[Brother No. 1]

you are right comrade absolutly right

[Kassad]

So you think it is inevitable that the proletariat will rise up, smash the bourgeoisie and create a new world? That nothing can stop this?

I think thats absurd, I think lots of things can stop it, like nuclear war, environmental destruction returning us to a pre-industrial society, or more emminent things, like reform which take the fight out of the revolutionary groups of people.

I don't think there is anything inevitable about revolution. I think capitalism creates the conditions that make revolution necessary, but I don't think it will automatically happen just because the conditions exist.

It is inevitable that in the capitalist system, class struggle will be forged and eventually, those being oppressed and manipulated will fight back. This was shown in 1917 with the October Revolution. It was shown in 1959 in Cuba. It was shown in Chicago with the recent factory takeover by the workers there. Of course, these uprisings can be stopped by a multitude of things like what you listed, but the working class will continue to reach levels of disdain and irritation towards the bourgeoisie until their liberation. The problem with such reforms is that they can only last so long. The reforms during the Great Depression, since they have not been properly updated and maintained, are causing heavy debt and economic turbulence on the United States right now. The military budget is throwing the nation deep into debt and is causing skyrocketing unemployment, along with other things. These reforms can only cut it for so long.

In my opinion, I think it is nearly guaranteed that workers will continue to fight for justice as long as capitalism exists and eventually, when they realize that justice is not and cannot be achieved, they will revolt.

[The Intransigent Faction]

Yes, it is a good political standing. Not perfect, of course, but good.
I would certainly see the three-world model as accurate in the era of multinational corporations. I doubt many here would question that the third-world bears the brunt of multinational exploitation.

Some say that Maoism is too liberal in the sense that it allows bourgeois too much opportunity to take control.

Maoism calls on the peasantry and proletariat to be wary. It was Mao who, under the pretense that "The people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the making of world history." called for the masses to "bombard the capitalist roaders inside the party".



Some say it is 'authoritarian'. I would note that Mao himself denounced the personality cult. He stated in 1972 that this personality cult was manifested largely from those allies who had an interest in eventually succeeding him.


I would be critical of a personality cult, but comradely admiration is certainly a predictable by-product of playing a heavy role in a revolution.


As for other aspects of "authoritarianism" in terms of "information control"...Mao launched the "Hundred Flowers Campaign" which was stopped as a result of attacks by party hardliners.

He also said of self-criticism:

"The Communist Party does not fear criticism because we are Marxists, the truth is on our side, and the basic masses, the workers and peasants, are on our side."

Speech at the Chinese Communist Party's National Conference on Propaganda Work (March 12, 1957), 1st pocket ed., p. 14.

Conscientious practice of self-criticism is still another hallmark distinguishing our Party from all other political parties. As we say, dust will accumulate if a room is not cleaned regularly, our faces will get dirty if they are not washed regularly. Our comrades' minds and our Party's work may also collect dust, and also need sweeping and washing. The proverb "Running water is never stale and a door-hinge is never worm-eaten" means that constant motion prevents the inroads of germs and other organisms. To check up regularly on our work and in the process develop a democratic style of work, to fear neither criticism nor self-criticism, and to apply such good popular Chinese maxims as "Say all you know and say it without reserve", "Blame not the speaker but be warned by his words" and "Correct mistakes if you have committed them and guard against them if you have not"-- this is the only effective way to prevent all kinds of political dust and germs from contaminating the minds of our comrades and the body of our Party.

"On Coalition Government" (April 24, 1945), Selected Works, Vol. III, pp. 316-17



Lastly, more than 10,000 different newspapers and pamphlets were published during the Cultural Revolution.
I tend to focus more on practice and less on theory than I should sometimes...but theory's important too, so:

Certainly the national bourgeoisie were not allowed to unconditionally enter high positions of influence in the Party...and if they were, to reiterate, Mao called on the masses to prevent this. I would not support unconditionally allowing bourgeois to join the party, but I see the sense, especially in the modern world still pretty well dominated by the U.S., in not immediately isolating or destroying those who could potentially be revolutionaries.

I wouldn't consider myself an expert. I'm sure someone could elaborate better than I.
I don't know if I'll be around for the next couple of days, so:

Happy Holidays RevLeft!

[Brother No. 1]

you make perfect point and answer Comrade I salute you

[The Douche]

It is inevitable that in the capitalist system, class struggle will be forged and eventually, those being oppressed and manipulated will fight back. This was shown in 1917 with the October Revolution. It was shown in 1959 in Cuba. It was shown in Chicago with the recent factory takeover by the workers there. Of course, these uprisings can be stopped by a multitude of things like what you listed, but the working class will continue to reach levels of disdain and irritation towards the bourgeoisie until their liberation. The problem with such reforms is that they can only last so long. The reforms during the Great Depression, since they have not been properly updated and maintained, are causing heavy debt and economic turbulence on the United States right now. The military budget is throwing the nation deep into debt and is causing skyrocketing unemployment, along with other things. These reforms can only cut it for so long.

In my opinion, I think it is nearly guaranteed that workers will continue to fight for justice as long as capitalism exists and eventually, when they realize that justice is not and cannot be achieved, they will revolt.

I think it is very possible that we would witness the collapse of industrial society before seeing successful global revolution. I don't think that is inevitable, but thats my feeling based on the current state of our movement in relation to the conditions at hand.

You seem to be under the impression that as long as capitalism exists the workers will eventually overthrow it. I disagree. But this is in no way related to the thread.

[BIG BROTHER]

Maoism in my opinion is just another Stalinist ideology, that arose due to the material conditions in China at the time of the revolution. So no I wouldn't consider it "good" and I don't think it leads to socialism.