Thread: Mao Zedong

Results 41 to 60 of 667

  1. #41
    Join Date Jul 2009
    Location NY
    Posts 1,173
    Organisation
    DSA
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    You mean about the Shining Path massacring peasants indiscriminately, not even sparing children? The Naxalites taking lives of workers with their bombings in public places?

    How about the Nepali Maoists proclaiming proudly that they are going to build capitalism, inviting foreign investors to Nepal, talking about banning strikes almost as soon as they got to power?

    Indeed the present is far more difficult to distort, contrary to the history of China in the first half of the last century on which the Maoist distortions have became myths commonly accepted by most history-writers of the whole world capitalist order.
    I think I understand your argument about China, and the Shining Path was indeed steeped in excessive violence, but what you say about the Nepal Maoists really is an unfair characterization.

    There's a few threads in the politics section, but its undeniable that Nepal indeed must accumulate capital, and ideal situations hardly exist there; they are in a far harder spot then the Bolsheviks ever were; so instead of inviting
    business to come in and build a dam etc, what would you suggest?
    Nepal is in an extremely precarious situation, if India feels like it they can simply close their borders and starve them to death.
    Its a global world, and they've made great strides.
    I understand you uphold the 1917 revolution, but one could easily dismiss it the same way by saying things like "Oh, those Bolsheviks come into power, proudly shutting down papers and killing anarchists etc etc"
    Last edited by spiltteeth; 8th November 2009 at 17:44.
  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to spiltteeth For This Useful Post:


  3. #42
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Scarlet:

    So the USSR suddenly turned state-capitalist when Lenin died?? You're clearly just picking the historical figures you like and trying to define what is capitalist and socialist by the dates of their existence, rather than by looking at the real economics. How was the USSR state capitalist after Lenin but not while he was still alive? A consistent (though incorrect) argument could be made from the anti-Leninist view that the USSR was always state-capitalist, since Lenin got rid of the soviets and done the New Economic Policy and all that. But to say that it was socialist under Lenin and turned state-capitalist when he died doesnt seem to make any sense, and just shows an illogical urge to criticise all 'stalinist' regimes while upholding the great Lenin figure.
    You obviously think that the word 'after' always means 'one second later'. So, if I were to say, that the second world war was after the first, you'd jump in with an inane:

    So, the second world war 'suddenly' happened after the first, eh?
    Keep taking the tablets...
  4. #43
    Join Date May 2006
    Location House of the Rising Night
    Posts 3,973
    Organisation
    Pale Blue Jadal
    Rep Power 40

    Default

    When and where?
    There are numerous examples, bombings of schools, railway stations, public buildings, murder of villagers, drivers etc. You can do your own research for the details if you wish.

    If the naxalites deliberately bomb public places, how come their movement is becoming so huge that at places where the government forces conduct operations
    Being brutal has got nothing to do with having mass support. The CPI (M), for instance, also has mass support despite its horrible anti-working class practices. Obama has mass support in the US. Hitler had mass support in Germany.

    This question gives away the democratic-liberal mindset of western Maoism.

    If naxalites are conducting an armed-struggle, then an armed opposition to the oppressive Indian state is indeed possible.
    Pakistan, for example, can start a war with India tomorrow also, putting forward, again, an armed opposition to the oppressive Indian state. This would of course not make the Pakistani government any less oppressive.

    Of course it is possible for a pseudo-radical armed bourgeois group to murder a few cops and people, bomb a few buildings and put forward "armed opposition". This does not make their individualist-terrorist armed actions positive for the proletariat in any way nor do they advance the struggle of the proletariat at all.

    In this situation, why have the Indian left communists not taken up the revolutionary task of arming the proletariat?
    Arming the proletariat can not be the task of a minority of the class, even if the minority we are talking about commands the influence and strength enabling it to be called the class party, the vanguard of the revolutionary proletariat. The class as a whole and the class itself arms itself, and the communist minority can only be an organic part of this struggle of the class, along with other struggles of it.

    but what you say about the Nepal Maoists really is an unfair characterization.
    It is not a characterization, it is a statement of facts.

    but its undeniable that Nepal indeed must accumulate capital
    I am interested in the interests of the Nepali working class, not in "what Nepal must do".

    so instead of inviting business to come in and build a dam etc, what would you suggest?
    I don't see my task as a revolutionary as suggesting alternative policies for capitalist governments.

    I understand you uphold the 1917 revolution, but one could easily dismiss it the same way by saying things like "Oh, those Bolsheviks come into power, proudly shutting down papers and killing anarchists etc etc"
    Except one can't really do that, because those things did not happen immediately, they happened over the years increasingly, as an expression of the degeneration of the revolution. (I am saying this excluding the shutting down of counter-revolutionary or reactionary papers, which indeed would be something to be proud of.)
    "Communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution." - Karl Marx

    Pale Blue Jadal
  5. #44
    Join Date Aug 2009
    Posts 3,930
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    There are numerous examples, bombings of schools, railway stations, public buildings, murder of villagers, drivers etc. You can do your own research for the details if you wish.
    Please be specific about your claims that naxals' action harm the masses. Railway stations have been attacked due to military reasons. Whenever these are blown up, they are evacuated first. Oppressive policemen, parliamentary party goons and their informers are also villagers. They have to be dealt as armed counter-revolutionaries are dealt with during a revolution. The majority of schools in rural India are being converted into camps for government forces. These are the ones that Maoists attack. You'd better do some research on this yourself.


    Being brutal has got nothing to do with having mass support. The CPI (M), for instance, also has mass support despite its horrible anti-working class practices. Obama has mass support in the US. Hitler had mass support in Germany.

    This question gives away the democratic-liberal mindset of western Maoism.
    Do not compare the CPI(M) with Obama and Hitler. The CPI(M)'s domain of oppression lies in the third-world where the imperialist plunder is most prominent. The CPI(M) has absolutely no mass-support. It operates with the help of state-machinery and armed goons. A read-up on the anti-SEZ struggle in rural India is a good source for knowing about all this.


    Pakistan, for example, can start a war with India tomorrow also, putting forward, again, an armed opposition to the oppressive Indian state. This would of course not make the Pakistani government any less oppressive.
    Pakistan started as a different nation with war-supplies. Naxalites had to start from nothing, swell their ranks to hundreds of thousands, snatch weapons from strong government forces. They are reported to "melt within the villagers" after raids. Your knowledge of military science is so poor that you don't know that a prolonged guerrilla struggle of this type can be waged only with huge mass support, and you are comparing that with an outer invasion.


    Of course it is possible for a pseudo-radical armed bourgeois group to murder a few cops and people, bomb a few buildings and put forward "armed opposition". This does not make their individualist-terrorist armed actions positive for the proletariat in any way nor do they advance the struggle of the proletariat at all.
    Are you refering to the naxals here? Prbably you haven't read anything about them since the early 70s then? Even then you require to explain why they are a "pseudo-radical armed bourgeois group" and you are a communist.

    Present day naxal activities include building schools, dams, hospitals,(these the government forces destroy when they operate in those areas) digging canals, taking over small cities temporarily, conducting jailbreaks, challenging companies of government forces, organizing the urban proletariat, building peoples' militia etc. to name a few.


    Arming the proletariat can not be the task of a minority of the class, even if the minority we are talking about commands the influence and strength enabling it to be called the class party, the vanguard of the revolutionary proletariat. The class as a whole and the class itself arms itself, and the communist minority can only be an organic part of this struggle of the class, along with other struggles of it.
    If a communist party itself does not take initiative to boost subjective conditions in order to bring about qualitative social change, then what is the point of its pathetic existence?


    EDIT: some links to support my claims.

    Notice the part that refers to the "practice" of government forces occupying schools.

    http://www.telegraphindia.com/109081...y_11351417.jsp

    The Jehanabad jail-break.

    http://www.hindu.com/2005/12/06/stor...0614750500.htm

    The armed conflict in Lalgarh. See how many companies fight them at a single place.

    http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/...100258906.html

    Participation of the masses as militias.

    http://www.deccanchronicle.com/natio...st-plotter-708

    A military action in Chattisgarh

    http://www.merinews.com/article/maoi...15775787.shtml
    Last edited by red cat; 8th November 2009 at 20:48.
  6. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to red cat For This Useful Post:


  7. #45
    Join Date Nov 2008
    Location Norfolk, England
    Posts 3,128
    Organisation
    Peoples' Front of Judea (Marxist-Leninist)
    Rep Power 72

    Default

    What the fuck is wrong with you Leo? The Naxalites have no support from the bourgeoisie, any state, or any power other than the raw discontent of the Indian people. Obama, Hitler, etc, all had support from sectors of the ruling class and that is why they had power. The Naxalites have none of that, and the only thing keeping them afloat is the mass support of the people, which they have no choice but to earn through good policies. You clearly know nothing of the situation in India. Why would a "psuedo-radical force" be arming the peasants, fighting the bourgeois state and organising the urban proletariat? It really makes no sense man. It's a revolution goin down right now, and this ultra-leftist bullshit makes me sick.

    Keep taking the tablets...
    Don't say such stuff about mental illness; it is deeply offensive.
    COMMUNISM !

    Formerly zenga zenga !
  8. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to scarletghoul For This Useful Post:


  9. #46
    Join Date May 2006
    Location House of the Rising Night
    Posts 3,973
    Organisation
    Pale Blue Jadal
    Rep Power 40

    Default

    The Naxalites have no support from the bourgeoisie
    So would you consider the tribal leaders supporting the Naxalites not to be bourgeois? It is well known that an overwhelming majority of the Naxalite cadres themselves come from the bourgeois intelligentsia.

    any state, or any power
    Where do you think all the weapons and the bombs came from genius?

    Why would a "psuedo-radical force" be arming the peasants
    Reminds me of the Green Army in Russia, the anti-Bolshevik peasant army that is. Wonder why a rural bourgeois organization would mobilize and make an army out of the peasantry.

    fighting the bourgeois state
    Shooting a few people and planting a few bombs, that is.

    and organising the urban proletariat
    Are you referring to minor unions like the All India Central Council of Trade Unions here?

    It's a revolution goin down right now
    Reality, as ever, tends to be very different from the romanticized images in the minds of liberal Stalinists.

    Please be specific about your claims that naxals' action harm the masses. Railway stations have been attacked due to military reasons. Whenever these are blown up, they are evacuated first. Oppressive policemen, parliamentary party goons and their informers are also villagers. They have to be dealt as armed counter-revolutionaries are dealt with during a revolution. The majority of schools in rural India are being converted into camps for government forces. These are the ones that Maoists attack. You'd better do some research on this yourself.
    From denying brutal attacks, bombings and murders, you have went on to justifying them. I have little to add to that.

    Do not compare the CPI(M) with Obama and Hitler. The CPI(M)'s domain of oppression lies in the third-world where the imperialist plunder is most prominent.
    You give me the impression of someone who basically knows nothing of the "third-world".

    The CPI(M) has absolutely no mass-support. It operates with the help of state-machinery and armed goons.
    It is not that rare that overly-enthustiastic distant supporters of something present what they want to see rather than what there actually is as reality.

    All bourgeois organizations rule with the help of state-machinery and armed goons, I would say that in areas they are in control Naxalites also rule with the help of a mini state-like structure they have and their own armed goons. And still, there is no bourgeois organization anywhere that is capable of ruling without having mass support.

    Are you refering to the naxals here? Prbably you haven't read anything about them since the early 70s then? Even then you require to explain why they are a "pseudo-radical armed bourgeois group" and you are a communist.
    They murder students, workers, villagers, proletarian civillians and so forth. Their practice is a substitutionist, anti-working class political practice where the relationship the leadership has with the base is indistinguishable from that of any other bourgeois organization. Their ideology is, based on maoism, an ideology of a block of different classes, tying the proletariat to the progressive, national bourgeoisie openly.

    If a communist party itself does not take initiative to boost subjective conditions in order to bring about qualitative social change, then what is the point of its pathetic existence?
    You can read John Reed's Ten Days Which Shook the World or Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution or Richard Müller's History of the German Revolution to get an idea of what the point and function of an actual communist party in a proletarian revolution is.
    "Communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution." - Karl Marx

    Pale Blue Jadal
  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Leo For This Useful Post:


  11. #47
    Join Date May 2006
    Location House of the Rising Night
    Posts 3,973
    Organisation
    Pale Blue Jadal
    Rep Power 40

    Default

    The revolution in Russia was as different from the revolution in China and other places.
    Which revolution in China? The proletarian revolution of 1927, or the bourgeois coup d'etat of 1949?

    A proletarian revolution is a proletarian revolution.

    Noone but utter idealist fools can expect all revolutions to look and feel the same as Russia 1917.
    So calling for proletarian revolution in all countries, and having an understanding of what a proletarian revolution is idealism? Funny, from Marx to Lenin, from Engels to Luxemburg, you have branded the whole marxist movement idealist.

    Also, I'm sure the communist left idealists used bourgeois propaganda to slander the Bolsheviks in a similar way
    This is a lie.

    in a similar way as they use similar bourgeois propaganda to slander the Maoists of today. This just proves that ultraleft tendencies are born out of militant dogmatism and anti-materialism as Lenin described in Left-wing Communism.
    Not understanding something is better than wrongly understanding it. People fickle enough to change the flags they claim they are carrying will not be considered sincere by anyone even if they have good intentions. You deserve nothing other than being mocked, being mistrusted even by those who you have now decided to regard as your comrades.
    "Communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution." - Karl Marx

    Pale Blue Jadal
  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Leo For This Useful Post:


  13. #48
    Join Date May 2008
    Location Tacoma, WA
    Posts 1,012
    Organisation
    Socialist Alternative Tacoma
    Rep Power 14

    Default

    Mao's ideology is based around the idea of constant struggle. The people must constantly have an enemy to fight against and to bring to justice for their crimes. The beginning of the struggle sessions were attacking only land lords, "evil gentry" and corrupt capitalists, however as they ran out of real enemies, the struggle sessions began to target go after people for less important "crimes" such as feudal tails (being related to rich people) or even having relatives who fought for the GMD/KMT as ordinary soldiers.

    There are also a large number of deaths pinned on Mao which were not intentional from the Great Leap Forward, which was a failed attempt to industrialize the country. During the Great Leap Forward there was a famine caused by a mix of several elements
    Bad weather
    The 3 Pest Campaign (which called for people to kill all sparrows, resulting in massive uncontrolled numbers of locusts)
    The 5 Year Plan's attempt to create a peasant based steel industry during which, in an act of misguided revolutionary fervor, peasants melted down all metal they owned and could find to turn it into steel. This included farming instruments.

    After the famine, which caused a lot of deaths was the Cultural Revolution, which was the result of the Party splitting way from Mao. In response, Mao called for students to fight for him against the party. Naturally, without any true leadership, the Red Guards (students and often workers who were fighting for Mao) often engaged in very violent fights against party members, the wealthy, moderates, and non-Maoists. By the end of this period, armies of different Red Guard groups were engaging in violent battles with each other which began with people simply fighting each other with fists, rocks and sticks, and gradually escalated from there to knives, spears, and bows and molotov cocktails, to explosives and guns. During one fight, one red guard army (I believe it was called the Regiment), during a cross campus war, forced the other Red Guard army into a building on campus, locked them into the building after several clashes with bows and spears (as well as an armored tractor which was later blown up by a molotov cocktail), and lit the building on fire, refusing to allow fire fighters access to the building. Fortunately the locals saw this and demanded the Regiment allow the other red guards to surrender before any more people died.


    To give Mao some credit, though he fucked up severely in the years after revolution, the system which he destroyed was one of the most disgusting classist garbage governments ever. Leadership was hereditary and led by idiots who took part in such moronic actions as taxing people to build a navy to defend the country, and then wasting all the cash on building a stone party boat instead and building man made lakes identical to other lakes in other parts of the country. Women were considered dirt who could be bought and sold.
    Landlords could get away with whatever the fuck they wanted
    and the GMD murdered people for uttering the slightest word against them (a funny dark story of this is of a man who was attending the funeral of a friends who was assasinated by the Guomindang. He gave a speech about how no matter how many great men the GMD killed, they would eventually be destroyed. The man left the funeral, walked a few blocks, and was gunned down on the street by the GMD)
  14. #49
    Join Date Apr 2006
    Location UK
    Posts 3,845
    Organisation
    SWP (UK)
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    For the record, I don't think that groups like the Naxalites are representatives of a section of the bourgeoisie, however much support they may elicit from tribal leaders, because, as a Trotskyist, I believe that the bourgeoisies of all underdeveloped countries are fundamentally impotent and unable to carry out their tasks to any degree whatsoever during the age of imperialism, due to being dependent on one or more of the imperialist powers and the authoritarian state, and as such I reject the Maoist distinction between the national and comprador bourgeoisie. The Maoist belief that any section of the bourgeoisie can be progressive during the age of imperialism and that the property of the so-called national bourgeoisie needs to be protected once the working class has taken power in order to allow for the development of the productive forces is evidence of Maoism being a fundamentally class-collaborationist policy, the origin of this ideology being the defeat of the Chinese working class in 1927. Rather than being a section of the bourgeoisie, the leadership of Maoist movements has historically come from the middle class, and in this sense they are no different from the other nationalist movements that seized power in the decades following WW2, such as the free officers in Egypt, and the only way we can explain this is with reference to the theory of permanent revolution, and in particular Tony Cliff's modifications to that theory. We in the SWP have always argued that when the proletariat is being prevented from carrying out a socialist revolution which both embodies and transcends the historic tasks of the bourgeoisie, otherwise known as the permanent revolution, then, given the impotence of the bourgeoisie, it is sometimes possible for a section of the middle class, often in the form of the army of the intelligentsia, to assume this role and carry out a partial version of the democratic revolution, the gains of which have always been limited and highly vulnerable. The democratic revolutions that have followed this pattern have been centered not around the attainment of bourgeois democracy but the completion of economic development, so as to provide a basis for national independence, and for this reason these movements have often used the language of socialism as a means of convincing the working population to accept high rates of exploitation, whilst ultimately having nationalism as their first priority.

    Comrades may find this interesting:Tony Cliff, Deflected Permanent Revolution, 1963

    Which revolution in China? The proletarian revolution of 1927
    What do you mean? I agree that there was a possibility of revolution in China during this period, particularly during the later stages of the May 30th Movement in 1925, but I'm sure you agree with me that the events of April 1927 marked a tragic defeat for the Chinese working class.

    You know, the one that established the People's Republic of China.
    You mean the one in which the working class has almost no role whatsoever, the one which involved the CPC ordering workers not to take control of their factories or disrupt production as the PLA took control of the cities, the one in which Liu Shaoqi punished cadres for encouraging workers to seize control of their workplaces?
  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BobKKKindle$ For This Useful Post:


  16. #50
    Join Date Aug 2009
    Posts 3,930
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    So would you consider the tribal leaders supporting the Naxalites not to be bourgeois? It is well known that an overwhelming majority of the Naxalite cadres themselves come from the bourgeois intelligentsia.

    Where do you think all the weapons and the bombs came from genius?

    Reminds me of the Green Army in Russia, the anti-Bolshevik peasant army that is. Wonder why a rural bourgeois organization would mobilize and make an army out of the peasantry.

    Shooting a few people and planting a few bombs, that is.

    Are you referring to minor unions like the All India Central Council of Trade Unions here?

    Reality, as ever, tends to be very different from the romanticized images in the minds of liberal Stalinists.

    From denying brutal attacks, bombings and murders, you have went on to justifying them. I have little to add to that.

    You give me the impression of someone who basically knows nothing of the "third-world".

    It is not that rare that overly-enthustiastic distant supporters of something present what they want to see rather than what there actually is as reality.

    All bourgeois organizations rule with the help of state-machinery and armed goons, I would say that in areas they are in control Naxalites also rule with the help of a mini state-like structure they have and their own armed goons. And still, there is no bourgeois organization anywhere that is capable of ruling without having mass support.

    They murder students, workers, villagers, proletarian civillians and so forth. Their practice is a substitutionist, anti-working class political practice where the relationship the leadership has with the base is indistinguishable from that of any other bourgeois organization. Their ideology is, based on maoism, an ideology of a block of different classes, tying the proletariat to the progressive, national bourgeoisie openly.



    You can read John Reed's Ten Days Which Shook the World or Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution or Richard Müller's History of the German Revolution to get an idea of what the point and function of an actual communist party in a proletarian revolution is.
    You have not countered my arguments anywhere. You keep on repeating your assertions like a parrot. You have not even mentioned a single specific event or a source supporting your claim. Clearly you are not accustomed to questioning what you believe, and you would continue defending it like a religious fundamentalist rather than enriching your knowledge.
  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to red cat For This Useful Post:


  18. #51
    Join Date Aug 2009
    Posts 3,930
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    For the record, I don't think that groups like the Naxalites are representatives of a section of the bourgeoisie, however much support they may elicit from tribal leaders, because, as a Trotskyist, I believe that the bourgeoisies of all underdeveloped countries are fundamentally impotent and unable to carry out their tasks to any degree whatsoever during the age of imperialism, due to being dependent on one or more of the imperialist powers and the authoritarian state, and as such I reject the Maoist distinction between the national and comprador bourgeoisie. The Maoist belief that any section of the bourgeoisie can be progressive during the age of imperialism and that the property of the so-called national bourgeoisie needs to be protected once the working class has taken power in order to allow for the development of the productive forces is evidence of Maoism being a fundamentally class-collaborationist policy, the origin of this ideology being the defeat of the Chinese working class in 1927. Rather than being a section of the bourgeoisie, the leadership of Maoist movements has historically come from the middle class, and in this sense they are no different from the other nationalist movements that seized power in the decades following WW2, such as the free officers in Egypt, and the only way we can explain this is with reference to the theory of permanent revolution, and in particular Tony Cliff's modifications to that theory. We in the SWP have always argued that when the proletariat is being prevented from carrying out a socialist revolution which both embodies and transcends the historic tasks of the bourgeoisie, otherwise known as the permanent revolution, then, given the impotence of the bourgeoisie, it is sometimes possible for a section of the middle class, often in the form of the army of the intelligentsia, to assume this role and carry out a partial version of the democratic revolution, the gains of which have always been limited and highly vulnerable. The democratic revolutions that have followed this pattern have been centered not around the attainment of bourgeois democracy but the completion of economic development, so as to provide a basis for national independence, and for this reason these movements have often used the language of socialism as a means of convincing the working population to accept high rates of exploitation, whilst ultimately having nationalism as their first priority.

    Comrades may find this interesting:Tony Cliff, Deflected Permanent Revolution, 1963
    Maoists consider the national bourgeoisie as a vacillating ally, and launch class-struggle against them as soon as the NDR is complete(because then all contradictions transform into the one between the bourgeoisie and proletariat). It is a fact that a portion of the national bourgeoisie fights dedicatedly in the NDR.

    If you look at the present Maoist movements and especially at the Indian one, you will see that a majority of the young members come from peasant or proletarian back-ground.
  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to red cat For This Useful Post:


  20. #52
    Join Date Oct 2007
    Location Croatia
    Posts 2,600
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    If you look at the present Maoist movements and especially at the Indian one, you will see that a majority of the young members come from peasant or proletarian back-ground.
    And how do you know or how can you prove that?
    You have been in India? I really doubt.
  21. #53
    Join Date Apr 2006
    Location UK
    Posts 3,845
    Organisation
    SWP (UK)
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Maoists consider the national bourgeoisie as a vacillating ally
    Maoist practice indicates that they considered the national bourgeoisie to be much more than just a vacillating ally, whatever this is supposed to mean - evidently Mao believed that they were important enough to advocate remaining in an alliance with the KMT for almost the whole of the 1920s against the calls of people like Chen Duxiu, despite the fact that this alliance involved the working class subordinating its interests to its exploiters, and eventually led to thousands of CPC members and trade unionists being massacred when Chiang Kai-shek decided that they were becoming too powerful and that he didn't need them any more in 1927. This trend continued whilst the CPC was in power as well and involved not only the so-called national bourgeoisie but also the rich peasants in the countryside. Let's look at the latter first. After poor peasants seized control of landlord and rich peasant estates themselves and chased after the members of those classes into the cities so that they would be able to confiscate their urban property and deliver class justice, Mao and his allies protested, and changed the CPC's policy on land reform so that reform was implemented by administrative methods only, over a period of time, and alongside the creation of local governmental organs, in contrast to the previous strategy of encouraging peasants to struggle openly against their oppressors and divide the struggle fruits amongst themselves. Also, the Agrarian Law of 1950 allowed rich peasants to own not only land they and their families worked but also land that was worked by hired laborers and rented out to other peasants, on the condition that no more than half of their total land belonged to these latter categories. These are not signs of a party dedicated to class struggle or land reform.

    In the urban areas, as I've already said, the party called on workers not to occupy their factories or challenge the bourgeoisie, with party leaders also arguing against the Labour Maintenance Law of October 1945 on the grounds that it had set wages too high, and introduced "excessive" welfare measures, and within the first few years of the CPC having taken power, profit rates had increased, compared to the rates before 1931, alongside an increase in the number of private business owners. Even after the property of so-called national capitalists was confiscated during the three- and five- anti campaigns of the early 1950s, former capitalists were still given a 5% interest payment each year on their property, up until the Cultural Revolution. The property of both the comprador and national capitalists was administered through a structure that had nothing to do with workers control - when the former had their property nationalized, for example, it was initially placed under the control of KMT officials and CPC officials, who took an inventory, before being passed to a triple alliance, consisting of party-military personnel, representatives of mass organizations such as the worker pickets, and retained personnel from the old regime, especially in the south, where these officials had been concentrated before the advance of the PLA and were not removed by the government when it fled to Taiwan. This structure involved the manager of the factory frequently acting as president of this alliance, and workers being given a consultative role only, as well as being forced to enter into arbitration when industrial disputes presented themselves, and it was extended in its entirety to the whole of the economy in the 1950s, including the former owners being part of the alliance, as government employees. These are not the signs of a party dedicated to working-class power, and their contempt for the struggles of working people is evident from the whole dismal history of the PRC, including the Cultural Revolution.

    I don't expect you to reply to any of this, because you're ignorant.
  22. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to BobKKKindle$ For This Useful Post:


  23. #54
    Join Date Aug 2009
    Posts 3,930
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Maoist practice indicates that they considered the national bourgeoisie to be much more than just a vacillating ally, whatever this is supposed to mean - evidently Mao believed that they were important enough to advocate remaining in an alliance with the KMT for almost the whole of the 1920s against the calls of people like Chen Duxiu, despite the fact that this alliance involved the working class subordinating its interests to its exploiters, and eventually led to thousands of CPC members and trade unionists being massacred when Chiang Kai-shek decided that they were becoming too powerful and that he didn't need them any more in 1927. This trend continued whilst the CPC was in power as well and involved not only the so-called national bourgeoisie but also the rich peasants in the countryside. Let's look at the latter first. After poor peasants seized control of landlord and rich peasant estates themselves and chased after the members of those classes into the cities so that they would be able to confiscate their urban property and deliver class justice, Mao and his allies protested, and changed the CPC's policy on land reform so that reform was implemented by administrative methods only, over a period of time, and alongside the creation of local governmental organs, in contrast to the previous strategy of encouraging peasants to struggle openly against their oppressors and divide the struggle fruits amongst themselves. Also, the Agrarian Law of 1950 allowed rich peasants to own not only land they and their families worked but also land that was worked by hired laborers and rented out to other peasants, on the condition that no more than half of their total land belonged to these latter categories. These are not signs of a party dedicated to class struggle or land reform.

    In the urban areas, as I've already said, the party called on workers not to occupy their factories or challenge the bourgeoisie, with party leaders also arguing against the Labour Maintenance Law of October 1945 on the grounds that it had set wages too high, and introduced "excessive" welfare measures, and within the first few years of the CPC having taken power, profit rates had increased, compared to the rates before 1931, alongside an increase in the number of private business owners. Even after the property of so-called national capitalists was confiscated during the three- and five- anti campaigns of the early 1950s, former capitalists were still given a 5% interest payment each year on their property. The property of both the comprador and national capitalists was administered through a structure that had nothing to do with workers control - when the former had their property nationalized, for example, it was initially placed under the control of KMT officials and CPC officials, who took an inventory, before being passed to a triple alliance, consisting of party-military personnel, representatives of mass organizations such as the worker pickets, and retained personnel from the old regime, especially in the south, where these officials had been concentrated before the advance of the PLA and were not removed by the government when it fled to Taiwan. This structure involved the manager of the factory frequently acting as president of this alliance, and workers being given a consultative role only, as well as being forced to enter into arbitration when industrial disputes presented themselves, and it was extended in its entirety to the whole of the economy in the 1950s. These are not the signs of a party dedicated to working-class power, and their contempt for the struggles of working people is evident from the whole dismal history of the PRC, including the Cultural Revolution.

    I don't expect you to reply to any of this, because you're ignorant.
    Let's use the present movements as examples, please.
  24. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to red cat For This Useful Post:


  25. #55
    Join Date Oct 2007
    Location Croatia
    Posts 2,600
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Please do not make chauvinist posts like this assuming everyone using this board is a European/American. People in other countries have internet access too, you know. Also one doesn't need to visit the sites to know the events going on there. We don't live in the stone age these days.
    Chauvinist post?! WTF?!
    I asked him/her how can he/she prove that Naxlaites are from that background. And I said that I doubt that red_cat was in India. If that's chauvinism then you are bigger hippie than Green Apostle.
  26. The Following User Says Thank You to Искра For This Useful Post:


  27. #56
    Join Date May 2008
    Location Tacoma, WA
    Posts 1,012
    Organisation
    Socialist Alternative Tacoma
    Rep Power 14

    Default

    Let's use the present movements as examples, please.
    The thread is about Mao, not modern China. Please though, you really are invited to talk about the topic.
  28. #57
    Join Date Apr 2006
    Location UK
    Posts 3,845
    Organisation
    SWP (UK)
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Let's use the present movements as examples, please.
    What a joke, I can imagine your thought process right now: "oh wait, this guy isn't going to buy my bullshit assertions about Maoism having anything to do with socialism, I'd better try to divert the discussion instead so people don't realize that I don't know anything about China". As for current movements it doesn't matter whether most of their membership is made up of workers and peasants, the same thing can be said about the British Labour Party, at least when it comes to workers, the important thing is the social composition and political orientation of the leadership, and that's thoroughly nationalist and class-collaborationist. Your personal disdan for the importance of self-emancipation, which is the core of Marxism and something that has been ignored by all Maoists, as I've shown above, is evident from your crass assumption that it's possible for a "revolutionary" party to summon a revolution out of thin air just by bombing a few railway stations and shooting a government official every now and again, whereas every decent Marxist recognizes that revolutions are a product of objective and subjective conditions, with revolutionary situations arising from capitalist crises that are international in scope, and that the role of a revolutionary party is not to make the revolution, as if that were possible, but to intervene in the struggles of the class whilst not being separate from it or seeking to substitute itself for the class, so that the working class can be the agent of its own emancipation, this being the essence of what a revolution is.

    Or, as Marx said, "the emancipation of the working class can only be the act of the working class itself", not the act of a bunch of forest guerrillas or a peasant army.
  29. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to BobKKKindle$ For This Useful Post:


  30. #58
    Join Date Aug 2009
    Posts 3,930
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    And how do you know or how can you prove that?
    You have been in India? I really doubt.
    How we know that is a secondary question. The real question is that how do I convince you?

    I cannot find the link to the daily which posted similar information. So.. alas, a Maoist source:

    http://indianvanguard.wordpress.com/...e-of-naxalism/
  31. The Following User Says Thank You to red cat For This Useful Post:


  32. #59
    Join Date Aug 2009
    Posts 3,930
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    What a joke, I can imagine your thought process right now: "oh wait, this guy isn't going to buy my bullshit assertions about Maoism having anything to do with socialism, I'd better try to divert the discussion instead so people don't realize that I don't know anything about China". As for current movements it doesn't matter whether most of their membership is made up of workers and peasants, the same thing can be said about the British Labour Party, at least when it comes to workers, the important thing is the social composition and political orientation of the leadership, and that's thoroughly nationalist and class-collaborationist. Your personal disdan for the importance of self-emancipation, which is the core of Marxism and something that has been ignored by all Maoists, as I've shown above, is evident from your crass assumption that it's possible for a "revolutionary" party to summon a revolution out of thin air just by bombing a few railway stations and shooting a government official every now and again, whereas every decent Marxist recognizes that revolutions are a product of objective and subjective conditions, with revolutionary situations arising from capitalist crises that are international in scope, and that the role of a revolutionary party is not to make the revolution, as if that were possible, but to intervene in the struggles of the class whilst not being separate from it or seeking to substitute itself for the class, so that the working class can be the agent of its own emancipation, this being the essence of what a revolution is.

    Or, as Marx said, "the emancipation of the working class can only be the act of the working class itself", not the act of a bunch of forest guerrillas or a peasant army.

    I have addressed this issue a number of times. When you start off with your version of history, which I happen to encounter on your posts the first time in my life, I really feel bad to tell you that these are the results of decades of falsification. So I want to refer to the present revolutions.

    And for the 347th I am informing you guys here that the Maoist movements are a little more than "bombing a few railway stations and shooting a government official every now and again". Please take care to actually click on some of the links I post.
  33. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to red cat For This Useful Post:


  34. #60
    Join Date May 2008
    Location Tacoma, WA
    Posts 1,012
    Organisation
    Socialist Alternative Tacoma
    Rep Power 14

    Default

    When you start off with your version of history, which I happen to encounter on your posts the first time in my life, I really feel bad to tell you that these are the results of decades of falsification. So I want to refer to the present revolutions.
    Oh please do... I am dying to hear about YOUR version of the 3 anti campaign, the 5 anti campaign, the 3 pest campaign, the great leap forward, and the cultural revolution....
    I really am just waiting to be enlightened.
    Did the steel manufacturing work?
    Was the famine real? Do sparrows being gone not have an effect on the economy?
    Were the people not completely capable of conducting the "struggle sessions" on their own?
    Do you know what the fuck these things are?

    I like the idea that the Naxalite (I am entirely sure I misspelled this) people are resisting... but have they taken part in any real social change? Has there been any redistribution of property?

Similar Threads

  1. Mao Zedong good or bad?
    By Verix in forum History
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 1st March 2009, 00:33
  2. [STUDY GROUP] Quotations from Mao Zedong?
    By OneBrickOneVoice in forum Research
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 28th January 2008, 21:25
  3. Mao Zedong
    By RedStarOverChina in forum History
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 27th March 2005, 08:45
  4. mao zedong little red book
    By man in the red suit in forum Cultural
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 26th May 2003, 06:18

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Tags for this Thread