Are Trotskyism and Maoism Compatible?

[ZrianKobani]

I'm really attracted to Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution and Mao's emphasis on third world revolution and I think if synthesized, they'd make an amazing internationalist platform. Aside from Mao's loyalty to Stalin, are the two ideologies compatible and if so then how, if not then how?

[Jose Gracchus]

No. Have you heard of "RED DAVE" or "carmelpence"?

[06hurdwp]

I'm really attracted to Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution and Mao's emphasis on third world revolution and I think if synthesized, they'd make an amazing internationalist platform. Aside from Mao's loyalty to Stalin, are the two ideologies compatible and if so then how, if not then how?

Interesting theory, I would also like to know about this.

[ZrianKobani]

No. Have you heard of "RED DAVE" or "carmelpence"?

No, should I have?

[Hebrew Hammer]

Best thread on revleft.

Answer: No.

[ZrianKobani]

Best thread on revleft.

Answer: No.

Ok, why?

[Тачанка]

Unlike maoists, trotskyists are communists.
They support the emancipation of the working class by the working class, instead of forming "alliances" with the "national bourgeoise" and the "urban petit-bourgeoise"(Bloc of four classes)

They support the self-governance of the workers, instead of a top-down dictatorship "listening" to what the workers "think" and then doing whatever's on the party's mind (Mass Line)

On top of all this, maoist movements sell out to the bourgeoise on all corners. They are baby Stalins.

[ZrianKobani]

Unlike maoists, trotskyists are communists.
They support the emancipation of the working class by the working class, instead of forming "alliances" with the "national bourgeoise" and the "urban petit-bourgeoise"(Bloc of four classes)

They support the self-governance of the workers, instead of a top-down dictatorship "listening" to what the workers "think" and then doing whatever's on the party's mind (Mass Line)

On top of all this, maoist movements sell out to the bourgeoise on all corners. They are baby Stalins.

I'm not interested in Mao or Trotsky as people and whether or not Mao was corrupt is beside the point right now, I'm only interested in the theories and at what points they agree and disagree.

[Тачанка]

Someone already tried combining the two (if I'm allowed to make a really broad generalization)

What came out is "Maoist Third-Worldism".

Where the revolution starts in the third world and then the workers of the 3. world deport the 1. world workers and let them work in slave labour camps.


It failed. People of that ideology are restricted on here, and mostly live in their mommy's basement in a first world country...

[caramelpence]

In theoretical terms, no, Maoism and Trotskyism are not compatible. However, it's also quite interesting that at the height of the Cultural Revolution and when many activists in the West were looking towards China and taking on Maoism as a form of radical chic, there were some important Trotskyist organizations who took on some of the aesthetics of Maoist China or who used Maoist idioms to characterize some of their own tactics - most notably, the International Marxist Group, which was one of the most important Trotskyist organizations in Britain during that period and was home to militants like Tariq Ali, argued in favor of "red bases" in universities, as part of their concept of the "student vanguard", drawing on the mythology surrounding the Yenan Way in China during the War of Resistance, despite theoretically being opposed to Mao's China. Maybe there is a research project here - looking at how Trotskyist organizations in the West were drawn towards China without ever actually becoming Maoist organizations? I always find myself saying this in every thread on Maoism, but it is an important point - part of the problem of talking about Maoism in general and particularly comparing Maoism to other segments of the revolutionary left is that when we talk about the Trotskyist tradition or Trotskyism it is at least possible to identify a set of theories and premises that can be said to form the core of that tradition, regardless of the intensity of the disagreements between particular Trotskyist organizations, whereas, with Maoism, Mao's own texts and arguments never approached the level of coherence or complexity as Trotsky's, and the PRC never developed a body like the Comintern to coordinate the formation and development of Maoist parties, and so it is less easy to talk about a stable ideology or political tradition called Maoism. There are, therefore, some organizations that called themselves Maoist and advanced interesting analyses that Trotskyists might be able to accept, such as the radically egalitarian Maoism that emerged in France, which embodied analyses of sexuality and gender, but as far as the actual practice of the PRC and CPC are concerned, it seems unlikely that Trotskyists would be able to identify with those.

If you want to get an idea of just how radical the break between Trotskyism and Maoism is, you might be interested in reading the writings of some of the Chinese Trotskyists who were driven out of the PRC as soon as the CPC came to power and often took up refuge in Hong Kong (which is where Chinese Trotskyism is located to this day) and participated in the debates within the international Trotskyist movement, especially Chen Bilan and Peng Shuzi. You might also consider the book The Mandate of Heaven by Nigel Harris, available online here, which is a lengthy Trotskyist analysis of Maoism and Maoist China, whose author was a member of the International Socialist tradition (i.e. the modern-day SWP) in Britain when he wrote the book.

[bezdomni]

Unlike maoists, trotskyists are communists.

Unlike Tachanka, I'm not a dogmatic Trotskyite troll and can actually answer your question.

Sam Marcy was an American communist who was sympathetic both to Trotsky's critique of the USSR and the Cultural Revolution in China.

There is a joke that Marcyites are "Trotskyists for Mao" (like Jews for Jesus).

[Geiseric]

Bloc of 4 classes and most of mao's other revolutionary strategies are pretty different than trot strategy. im no expert but the people were also very different, mao lived as a rich beurecrat and trotsky turned that life away and went around the world trying to build the 4th international.

[Savage]

I remember someone on revleft talking about a Danish 'Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyist-Maoist' group that used to exist, comprised of 14 year olds who attempted to gain weapons off North Korea to take down the Danish govt or some shit like that.

[bezdomni]

Ugh this thread sucks.

The question is totally legitimate...do you all really think there is zero overlap between Trotskyism and Maoism?

Can the two tendencies find nothing to agree on? Seriously?! This is what the majority of people posting in this thread think?

[Savage]

Ugh this thread sucks.

The question is totally legitimate...do you all really think there is zero overlap between Trotskyism and Maoism?

Can the two tendencies find nothing to agree on? Seriously?! This is what the majority of people posting in this thread think?

Well Trotskyists and Maoists probably both agree that the sun is hot and that capitalism is not good but that doesn't mean that anyone should go on some 'anti-sectarian' crusade to unite the long lost cousins descendant from the thought of Mao and Trotsky, because as caramelpence elaborated, there's no point to this.

This is what the majority of people posting in this thread think?

This is what the majority of people that know anything about Trotsky or Mao think.

[Rowan Duffy]

They support the self-governance of the workers, instead of a top-down dictatorship "listening" to what the workers "think" and then doing whatever's on the party's mind (Mass Line)

That's not what the mass-line is. The mass-line is "from the people - to the people". That is, communists are supposed to get a handle on where the public is at, try to synthesise that and pull out the aspects that can be used to promote communism, and then utilise that to mobilise public support. That makes it both popular but not populist.

The idea is sometimes used to support either straight up populism, or to justify rigid adherence to some organisational political line, but that wasn't the intent behind it as you can see from Mao's writings.

I'm not a Maoist by any stretch of the imagination, but in looking over Maoism, the mass-line strikes me as one of the most useful concepts, and one not well duplicated by the rest of the revolutionary left.

http://kasamaproject.org/2010/03/25/...the-mass-line/
http://kasamaproject.org/2010/03/25/...fferent-roads/
http://kasamaproject.org/2010/05/27/...into-practice/

[bezdomni]

Well Trotskyists and Maoists probably both agree that the sun is hot and that capitalism is not good but that doesn't mean that anyone should go on some 'anti-sectarian' crusade to unite the long lost cousins descendant from the thought of Mao and Trotsky, because as caramelpence elaborated, there's no point to this.

Is that what I suggested?

I am a Maoist and I think that Trotsky's critique of the USSR suggests a misunderstanding of historical materialism and that Trotsky never actually stopped being a Menshevik.

That said, he did write some insightful things about the Soviet Union and should be studied by anyone who wants to understand the Bolshevik Revolution as fully as possible. Trotsky's writing is valuable, even if a lot of it is mistaken. It's important, if nothing else, to understand how he made those mistakes to avoid them.

This is what the majority of people that know anything about Trotsky or Mao think.

Your dogmatism is showing.

[RedSunRising]

No they are not.

Maoism focuses on the military conquest of state power, Trotskyism focuses on the other hand towards "mass Labour parties" (i.e. "social democracy", though that is getting more difficult every year as the nature of these parties shed all disguise so in some places they have being trying to recreate them or create them when they dont exist, just look at the ULA in Ireland or their campaign's for a Labour party in the USA) as well as Trade Unions (yellow Trade Unions now function at least in the western world as tools of Capital).

[Thirsty Crow]

Ugh this thread sucks.

The question is totally legitimate...do you all really think there is zero overlap between Trotskyism and Maoism?

Can the two tendencies find nothing to agree on? Seriously?! This is what the majority of people posting in this thread think?

I don't think that it's important to tear apart the two theories in search of a connecting point.
The "bloc of four classes", if we regard it as one of the essential programmatic points of Maoism, is class collaboration, pure and simple, and any communist group, be it Trotskyist or not, should know better.

[Savage]

That said, he did write some insightful things about the Soviet Union and should be studied by anyone who wants to understand the Bolshevik Revolution as fully as possible. Trotsky's writing is valuable, even if a lot of it is mistaken. It's important, if nothing else, to understand how he made those mistakes to avoid them.

But this isn't embracing Trotskyism. This thread is about whether the specific positions of Trotsky that define 'Trotskyism' can be combined with those that define 'Maoism', and since the 'unique' positions of the predominating Trotskyist and Maoist tendencies are considered by each party to be mutually anti-thetical, the answer to the question asked is an unquestionable NO. This thread is not about whether reading Trotsky's works are valuable, most organizations promote reading theory from outside of their own school of thought, ML organisations like the PSL apparently tell most new recruits to read certain Trotskyist texts, but ask any PSL member what they think of Trotskyist-Maoism.

Your dogmatism is showing.

I don't give a shit.