What is Maoism ?

Printable View

22nd September 2011, 15:06
RightWinger

What is Maoism ?

Or to be more precise, what are the characteristics of Maoism. Keep it short.
And yes, I know who and where came up with that, so skip that part.
22nd September 2011, 15:15
mosfeld

Hello, here's a short description as seen in the MLM group here on RevLeft:

Quote:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/customgrou...1295037761.gif

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, as based mainly on the teachings of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Vladimir Lenin, Iosef Stalin and Mao Zedong, is the highest qualitative stage of Marxism so far and is the guiding ideology of revolutionaries the world over who carry forward the fight for a world free of all class distinctions, all exploitative production relations, all oppressive social relations, and all corresponding, reactionary ideas - the communist world of the future. Basic Marxist-Leninist principles were implemented successfully, though with shortcomings, in the Soviet Union during the leadership of Lenin and Stalin, but it was the experience of socialist construction and the 'Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution' in the People's Republic of China under Mao however that heralded 'Mao Tse-Tung Thought' and later 'Maoism' as a new qualitative advancement of Marxism-Leninism. Key principles of Maoism include:

1. The people's war strategy, i.e. a strategy of mass-based guerilla war principally relying on the exploited social base leading to the encirclement of the more developed areas that profit from the exploitation of that social base.

2. The mass line, which encompasses four main points: a) learn from the people while leading them, b) serve the people while leading them, c) rely on the people while leading them, and d) practice leadership mainly in the form of guidance rather than commands.

3. The philosophical, strategic, and tactical approach of identifying the contextual principal contradiction and attacking the contextual main enemy. (Divide and conquer, in other words.)

4. New democratic revolution and the corresponding strategic block of four classes as the path to sustainable socialism for countries with pre-capitalist modes of production.

5. Political and cultural revolutions within the proletarian revolution as occasionally necessary.

Unfortunately, following the lead of the Khrushchovite revisionists who destroyed socialism in the USSR after Stalin's death, after Mao's death the PRC was also taken over by revisionists who revise and betray fundamental principles of Marxism in the interests of capitalism and, like the USSR before it, a once great proletarian state was taken down the path of capitalist restoration and social-imperialism. Because of this, we put particular emphasis on the dangers of revisionism. Despite the defeats of the 20th century, the flame of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is still being kept alive and advanced by the experiences of the countless CPs in the third world waging or preparing for people's war. Long live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!

If you want to read more, here are some good documents:

Why Maoism? by Shashi Prakash
What is Maoism? by Bernard D'Mello
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism: Basic Course
Setting the Record Straight by RCP,USA members (mainly on China)
Declaration of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement by RIM members
On Marxism-Leninism-Maoism by the Communist Party of Peru
22nd September 2011, 15:20
ComradeMan

Quote:

Originally Posted by RightWinger

Or to be more precise, what are the characteristics of Maoism. Keep it short.
And yes, I know who and where came up with that, so skip that part.

A crock of shit with a red flag on it.
22nd September 2011, 15:51
Iron Felix

Maoism is putting rice fields near railroad tracks to give the impression of abundance of food while massive famines are happening. The idealogy of a Chinese Emperor, it has no place here.
22nd September 2011, 16:32
RightWinger

Quote:

Originally Posted by mosfeld

Hello, here's a short description as seen in the MLM group here on RevLeft:

If you want to read more, here are some good documents:

Why Maoism? by Shashi Prakash
What is Maoism? by Bernard D'Mello
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism: Basic Course
Setting the Record Straight by RCP,USA members (mainly on China)
Declaration of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement by RIM members
On Marxism-Leninism-Maoism by the Communist Party of Peru

Thank you !
P.S what do Maoists think about the great leap forward and the cultural revolution ? Success or failure ?
22nd September 2011, 16:53
Tim Cornelis

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iron Felix

Maoism is putting rice fields near railroad tracks to give the impression of abundance of food while massive famines are happening. The idealogy of a Chinese Emperor, it has no place here.

Judging by your avatar you are a Leninist. Don't you think it's a bit unfair to judge a political theory not by its theory but how it was implemented?

Marxism-Leninism as described in Lenin's State and Revolution differs much from what the Soviet Union looked like. Yet when we discuss Leninist theory we merely discuss actual theory.
22nd September 2011, 23:51
Rafiq

Maoism is a class collaborationist petite bourgeois idealogy... Or in better words, as I've stated before, Marxism Leninism on cocaine.

The Maoist tactics ( if there even is any ) are almost always proven failures.
22nd September 2011, 23:53
Agent Equality

Insanity made in china
22nd September 2011, 23:58
Sentinel

Moved to OI Learning in tradition with the Trotskyism thread.
23rd September 2011, 04:25
Os Cangaceiros

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goti123

Judging by your avatar you are a Leninist. Don't you think it's a bit unfair to judge a political theory not by its theory but how it was implemented?

Marxism-Leninism as described in Lenin's State and Revolution differs much from what the Soviet Union looked like. Yet when we discuss Leninist theory we merely discuss actual theory.

When a political theory or policy measure has been attempted and has failed, once or multiple times, this can and should be taken into consideration when trying to ascertain the value of the theory. It shouldn't simply be written off, due to many mitigating factors, but it's certainly not unreasonable to address Maoism not as an abstract theory but as a set of concrete policy measures that were inacted to achieve specific goals.
23rd September 2011, 05:37
Homo Songun

True. The most advanced/sustained revolutionary situations in the world today are usually propelled by a core force oriented towards Maoism. The principal contradiction today is between Imperialism and the neocolonial third world. Thus, in southeastern and southern Asia, the Philippines and India/Nepal are in the lead respectively. Both revolutions are led by Maoists. Interestingly, in other revolutionary areas you have movements that are not officially Maoist, but related in some way. Or at least appropriating Maoist tactics to a certain degree. The center of gravity of the Latin American revolution at this time is actually not Venezuela but Colombia, and there the revolution is lead by the FARC which is engaged in PPW. And of course in Tunisia, where the Arab Spring kicked off, the strongest left force is the PCOT, which is Hoxhaist.
23rd September 2011, 05:57
Dzerzhinsky's Ghost

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rafiq

Maoism is a class collaborationist petite bourgeois idealogy... Or in better words, as I've stated before, Marxism Leninism on cocaine.

The bold is by far the best summation I have ever heard of Maoism.

For a biased opinion, it's revisionism with a lot of weird theories, historical positions and even weirder modern off-shoots.
23rd September 2011, 05:59
Susurrus

Another reason it is still used by some movements is because Maoism happened to have a state behind it that was more than happy to provide resources to spread it abroad longer than the USSR.
23rd September 2011, 06:00
Commissar Rykov

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dzerzhinsky's Ghost

The bold is by far the best summation I have ever heard of Maoism.

For a biased opinion, it's revisionism with a lot of weird theories, historical positions and even weirder modern off-shoots.

Indeed, I also find the Three Worlds Theory to be laughable especially since it is just posturing to make the PRC look like some kind of savior for the rest of the Third World. Ignoring the fact that Mao was good buds with Pinochet. Third Position Collaboration Forever!
23rd September 2011, 06:21
black magick hustla

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shmuel Katz

True. The most advanced/sustained revolutionary situations in the world today are usually propelled by a core force oriented towards Maoism. The principal contradiction today is between Imperialism and the neocolonial third world. Thus, in southeastern and southern Asia, the Philippines and India/Nepal are in the lead respectively. Both revolutions are led by Maoists. Interestingly, in other revolutionary areas you have movements that are not officially Maoist, but related in some way. Or at least appropriating Maoist tactics to a certain degree. The center of gravity of the Latin American revolution at this time is actually not Venezuela but Colombia, and there the revolution is lead by the FARC which is engaged in PPW. And of course in Tunisia, where the Arab Spring kicked off, the strongest left force is the PCOT, which is Hoxhaist.

you make it seem as if maoism has any chance of winning and instead it isnt stuck in areas the state could give three fucks about
23rd September 2011, 06:48
Dzerzhinsky's Ghost

Quote:

Originally Posted by Commissar Rykov

Indeed, I also find the Three Worlds Theory to be laughable especially since it is just posturing to make the PRC look like some kind of savior for the rest of the Third World. Ignoring the fact that Mao was good buds with Pinochet. Third Position Collaboration Forever!

The thing is, there is some thing admirable in Maoist thought, the PRC under Mao did accomplish some good things and I like the idea of the cultural revolution. With this being said theories such as the Three Worlds Theory I can just not accept or find legitimate; it spits in the face of proper Marxist class analysis and in practice leads to things like China allying itself with Pinochet's Chile. I think Hoxha was spot on in his analysis of Maoism and Mao-era China. See here:

"Maoism" was proclaimed as the highest stage of Marxism-Leninism in the present era. The Chinese leaders have declared that ‘Mao Tsetung has achieved more than Marx, Engels, and Lenin…’ The Constitution of the Communist Party of China, approved at its 9th Congress, which was held under Mao Tsetung’s leadership, says that ‘Mao Tsetung thought is the Marxism-Leninism of the era … ‘, that Mao Tse-tung “….has inherited, defended and developed Marxism-Leninism and has raised it to a new, higher stage”. Basing the activity of the party on Maoism instead of on the principles and norms of Marxism-Leninism opened the doors even more widely to opportunism and factional struggle within the ranks of the Communist Party of China. Maoism is an amalgam of views in which ideas and theses borrowed from Marxism are mixed up with idealist, pragmatic and revisionist principles from other philosophies."-Enver Hoxha, Imperialism and Revolution.

For the full thing, click here.

As far as Maoism is concerned Lenin was almost prophetic when he said:

"The theoretical victory of Marxism compelled its enemies to disguise themselves as Marxists."-Vladimir Lenin.

Note, I don't mean to just rag on you Maoists, I want to be sympathetic however the majority of the time I'm like wtf and I, for ideaological and logical reasons, simply can not agree.
23rd September 2011, 07:34
Homo Songun

Quote:

Originally Posted by black magick hustla

you make it seem as if maoism has any chance of winning and instead it isnt stuck in areas the state could give three fucks about

The people that actually have to live in those places certainly seem to give fucks about the situation they find themselves in. Which is not to say that discussing the latest in autonomist critical theory over vegan potluck with friends doesn't have its place too, though.
23rd September 2011, 07:49
Jose Gracchus

I hope FARC at least sends you some fine ass white powder for your PR troubles
23rd September 2011, 09:01
Homo Songun

I thought it was a fairly uncontroversial thing to say about Colombia. Chomsky likes to talk about the close correspondence between social unrest, US aid, and trade unionist assassinations. It seems that as one goes up, so do the others. Of course, Colombia has been one of the top recipients of US aid, as well as being one of the most likely places to be assassinated if you are a trade unionist, for quite some time now. Is Chomsky a PR flack for FARC then? Oh well. The bosses get it, even if the left doesn't. They are working very hard to place multiple bases on Colombian territory. :huh:
23rd September 2011, 09:17
Jose Gracchus

No, I think all of the claims you made are quite reasonable, except for the idea that social revolution - by which we mean the self-emancipation and -abolition of the proletariat as a class, by the proletariat as a class - is on the table right now in Colombia, much less that this process is being 'led' and 'directed' (if indeed it is even reasonable to speak in such terms about the social revolution against capital) by FARC pursuing a strategy of "people's war".

It is obvious to any serious observer that guerrilla war in Colombia's periphery has been moribund and made no decisive progress for decades now, and that it has become almost entirely consolidated into the countryside banditry and lumpenbourgeois international drug trade. It is even more obvious that no revolutionary situation exists in Colombia, and no meaningful force in Colombia is really poised to overturn value production and its attendant social relations.

Just because a certain instrument of organized violence and repression is utilized by a group of capitalists in the interests of that group, doesn't mean what the instrument is being used against threatens capital. The United States was opposed to fascism once, because it was a competitor with the interests of the American haute bourgeoisie; it didn't mean fascism threatened capital as such. The same goes for independent or defiant states and markets that the U.S. hegemon considers to be within 'it's' sphere of influence. The U.S. was opposed to Peron, is that because Peron presented a threat to capital, or to American dominant coalitions of capital, and the maintenance of their dominance in particular as opposed to other groups of capitals, specifically?

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page