State capitalist theories are racist

1927: Shnaghai workers' revolt, crushed by nationalists with complicity of Mao and co.
1945: Saigon workers Commune, repressed with the active involvement of the Vietminh (Ho and co.)
Workers' uprising in Cordoba, Argentina, 1969.
Strikes by workers of Angola, Mozambique and Zimbabwe against the so-called national liberation governments in the 70s and 80s.
Venezuelan oil and steel workers strikes repressed by Chavist regime.
Massive strikes in Egypt, Bangla Desh, Korea, China in the last few years.
Struggles by South African workers against the ANC government last month.
Nepal: Maoist regime issues decree against workers' strikes.

The class struggle does not have any colour.

I didn't say, Mao was the one and only 'great helmsman' in 1927, but he was already a Stalinist, and Stalinism was directly responsible for the defeat of the workers' struggles in China, with its disastrous theory of the 'bloc of four classes' which tied the Communist Party to the nationalist bourgeoisie


Here's a rather different view of the oil workers' struggle in Venezuela:
http://en.internationalism.org/iccon...-oil-struggles

On Nepal:
http://libcom.org/news/nepal-maoists...-news-10042009

Anarchist Catalonia
Hot Autumn Italy
Winter of Discontent UK

For the record, I don't think either of these three qualify as being 'revolutions'. Catalonia certainly had potential, but the proletariat never held state power.

Further, not all 'state-capitalist' theorists uphold the October revolution as a workers' revolution, and those that do hold that it eventually degenerated into such at some point.

Solidaransc Poland

The International Communist Current has written numerous articles against support for Solidarnosc!

It is very clear, whites can make revolution, non-whites cannot.

The point that 'state-capitalist' theorists make is that no revolution so far has been succesful, wether led by Europeans or non-Europeans (Please note by the way that territories are not linked to racial identity, which is partly what you seem to be implying). It would be nice if for once someone could engage with the theoretical content of this, instead of throwing around meaningless slander.

I didn't say, Mao was the one and only 'great helmsman' in 1927, but he was already a Stalinist, and Stalinism was directly responsible for the defeat of the workers' struggles in China, with its disastrous theory of the 'bloc of four classes' which tied the Communist Party to the nationalist bourgeoisie

I think this is false, Alf. The Bloc of four classes was not implemented by the CP in the 20's, it was Mao's idea. Furthermore, I think it is absurd to say that Mao was personally responsible for the crushing of the Shanghai workers' revolt, simply because he was ideologically connected to the CP. That seems a bit like saying that Myasnikov was responsible for the supression of the Kronstadt rebellion because he was a Bolshevik at the time (Note: I'm explicitly not comparing Miasnikov as a political figure to Mao).

Hi Zanthorus. Yes, you are right, the 'bloc' idea came later, but it was not substantially different from the idea of the Stalinist Comintern in the 20s that the proletariat should ally itself with the nationalist bourgeoisie to fight imperialism. And this policy certainly delivered the Shanghai workers to the Kuomintang executioners. Mao played a role in the Stalinisation of the CP and a significant one in transforming it from a workers' organisation to a bourgeois army based on the mobilisation of the peasants.

I apologise for what I said above, it seems that Mao was indeed complicit with the nationalist supression of the Shanghai revolt, even going so far as to temporarily abandon the Communist party to join the left-wing of the KMT:

His successes as a protestor and negotiator gained the apporval of his Communist associates, and he became one of the nine members of the Central Committee of the Commmunist Party... he was soon forced to maintain a dual role by taking part in an attempt to combine Communist aims with those of Sun Yatsen's Nationalists. Like many other Communists, Mao also joined the Nationalists, hoping to pursue revolutionary aims from within... Temporarily, he all but gave up on the Communists, instead declaring himself to the left wing of the Nationalists.