Results 21 to 40 of 389
Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk, Agent Ducky, Bright Banana Beard, Catmatic Leftist, CleverTitle, hatzel, Impulse97, Iraultzaile Ezkerreko, JerryBiscoTrey, JustMovement, Kuppo Shakur, Marxach-Léinínach, NewLeft, Pretty Flaco, RED DAVE, Red Future, RedSunRising, Robocommie, Rooster, Rusty Shackleford, The Man, Vampire Lobster, Weezer, ~Spectre
How the hell is this a useful contribution. Are you aware that the communist movement numerically is still dominated by MLs, and has been historically?
I think The Inform Candidate actually got it right on the mark. "Marxism-Leninism" has historically been characterized by a total aversion to theory (an attitude of anti-intellectualism, in other words) and those who identify as Marxist-Leninists on this site tend to exhibit gross ignorance of history and the Marxist tradition. One historical manifestation of this that was by no means limited to the Maoist tradition but still reflects hostility towards theory and intellectuals was the decision of many Maoist groups in the First World to send their student and middle-class members into factory occupations in the belief that this would allow them to intervene at the point of production and cast off their allegedly bourgeois prejudices. I also find it incredible that so many Maoists on this site and in actual real-world organizations can argue that Mao made a real contribution to revolutionary theory by emphasizing the dangers of capitalist restoration and the continuation of class struggle under socialism - not only because this alleged contribution dispenses with the issue of whether China was socialist in the 1960s and 70s but also because Mao never actually provided a theoretically developed or empirically supported account of what causes "capitalist roaders" to emerge under socialism and whether these roaders are conscious or unconscious in their support for the restoration of capitalism. To this day, I have never seen an account of how capitalism was supposedly restored in the Soviet Union and China in 1956 and 1978 that does not rely on absurd assertions of conspiracy or a Great Man version of history in which socialism is essentially dependent on a single leader staying alive.
Than you havent been looking very hard.
http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrmenu.html
http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/RCSU75.html
If you look at how ANY Maoist party operates in comparison to traditional Leninist, Trotskyist, or even Marxist-Leninist groups, you will understand that Mao quite clearly did make a theoretical contribution much larger than you would have it appear
Conspiracy is a dirty word, I have no idea why, there quite clearly WAS a conspiracy to restore capitalism in both of these countries. You can not possibly ask for an explanation of something, then dismiss it solely on the grounds that it relies on the existence of a conspiracy or just because you do not like it
The hostility to Marxist-Leninism comes from those of us who use the so-called 'meaningless' term Stalinism to refer to the theory of Socialism in One Country, which many of the rest of us consider to have been probably the biggest single betrayal of the workers' movement since the Social-Patriots joined their own bourgeoisies in 1914.
while I'm quite aware that there are a great many things that were wrong with the Bolsheviks and the revolution before this point, the adoption of Socialism in One Country marks the death of the Comintern.
For some of us at least there's no way back across that Rubicon. If you support the theory of 'Socialism One Country' you have sided with those who betrayed the working class whether you consider yourself a Marxist-Leninist, a Maoist, a Hoxhaist, a Castroist or whatever. Marxist-Leninism is a poisonous ideology that destroys proletarian internationalism and leads to massacres of the working class.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
Just wow!
The idea that ordinary working people might have something to teach students is now anti-intellectual? Its pretty easy to read books and memorize things out of them, but the stuff that actually stays comes from experience, books are indeed useful for deepening and fully understanding that knowledge but on their own that mean much.
These articles do not include an account of how the changes they specify were able to take place, in terms of class forces, they merely point to economic reforms in Soviet society after Stalin's death.
Specifics? In what ways did Maoist organizations prove innovative in their tactics and strategy? What commonalities did they exhibit?
Okay, let's get into this issue, looking especially at China. The notion of a conspiracy generally means that participants in the conspiracy are aware of their objectives and exhibit considerable cunning, and this is important because it differs from the conceivable (and perhaps more plausible) argument that capitalist roaders are actually subjectively in favor of socialism but that they act in ways that ultimately aid capitalism and are supported by spontaneous tendencies that arise from the structure and basic relations of society itself - so just to be clear, you are alleging that there was a conspiracy in the full sense of the word, that there were individuals in the Chinese leadership who pretended to be socialists but actually consciously wanted to restore capitalism, rather than capitalist restoration being spontaneous in origin. In this case, who do you think the main capitalist roaders were in Chinese society in the 1970s, where is your evidence that they were consciously in favor of restoring capitalism, why was the Cultural Revolution unable to identify and remove them from power, and how were they able to carry out the restoration of capitalism without being faced with the mass resistance of the Chinese working class? If it is so clear, you should be able to answer these questions with relative ease.
Strawman, I didn't argue that, I argued that the policy of "colonization" was indicative of an underlying anti-intellectual impulse that disparaged theoretical analysis and reified a particular image of the working class based around physical labor.
As the sun was in deep red already; only little light came down on earth. The stalinists seemed safe, for night was their time to hunt for prey.
But then, a beacon of light, shining high from above: caramelpence.
As he crushed down, with thundering hooves, lighting hailing his appearence from the sky, he poured tiny, shiny stars into all dark corners of the planet, illumating every single place where a stalinist could hide.
And he saw that it was good, and he saw that the stalinists could no longer hide. They were exposed, their logical fallacies broken into tiny little pieces, failing to back any false account of history anymore.
As these dark creatures were exposed to the light, shining brighter than the sun, they turned into trotskyites and anarchists alike.
But there were some who could hide.
Hidden from the light, deep down underground, in the basement of their parents, there can be found, the type of stalinist known as RevLeft dwellers. From there, they continue to wage a holy war against revolutionary socialism up until this day. That was what my mother told me, anyways, she was always a senile type, since it was that in West Philadelphia, born and raised, on the playground is where she spent most of her days, chillin out, maxin, relaxin all cool and all shootin sum b-ball outside of the school. If only we knew earlier, maybe we could have stopped her.
New democracy, bloc of four classes, people's war, mass line, cultural revolution, these are unique to Maoism, do I really need to be telling you this or are you taking the piss?
Nope, I'm not going to answer them because they are pointless and detract from the issue. My point was that dismissing an argument because it is based on what some people choose to view as a conspiracy theory is wrong. If you want to deny that there were people who set out to restore capitalism after Stalin died, after Mao died, then be my guest, it's ok. The reason I choose not to indulge Trotskyites (or many other people around here) anymore is because I have learned that most are not going to have their minds changed by even the most logical arguments.
Just to add I think the focus on the capture of state by means of protracted armed struggle is also an important difference between Maoists and most other tendencies, however this is shared by Marxist-Leninists in Turkey as well as the FARC in Columbia I admit. Also seeing subjective factors as important as objective ones and understanding the dialectial unity between the two.
New Democracy and the Block of Four classes are seen as measures of real politic though its true that we have more trust in the revolutionary of the poor peasantry and tribals than most Marxists.
I call into question whether these supposedly unique theoretical contributions are valuable or unique to Maoism. I've already pointed out that "cultural revolution" (or as I put it the continuation of class struggle under socialism) can hardly be regarded as a meaningful theoretical contribution because Mao never provided an account of where capitalist roaders come from and I've never seen a Maoist account of why these capitalist roaders triumphed despite the Cultural Revolution and what could have been done differently to ensure the victory of socialism in China - I would also argue that Mao's actual role in the Cultural Revolution involved restraining the scope of political and social conflict and ultimately calling on the PLA to restore order, which suggests that, if cultural revolution can be seen as a genuine theoretical insight, there was a break between his theoretical advocacy of mass mobilization and his concrete behavior as a leading figure within the state bureaucracy. As for the other points you mentioned, it is in the first place hard to see how concepts like New Democracy and people's war can be extended beyond the Third World, or indeed the immediate context of China in the 1920s, 30s, and 40s, where, on Mao's own account, there were particular factors that favored the success of the CPC, and I also question whether these concepts can be seen as useful additions to the Marxist tradition, even if they do have broader applicability. New Democracy, for example, is based on the false premise that China was still a semi-feudal society and that this is an appropriate description for certain countries today, and it also includes the assumption that it is possible and useful to distinguish between the national and comprador sections of the bourgeoisie, and that there can ever be a set of common interests between the working class and any section of the bourgeoisie. In analytical and strategic terms, I find permanent revolution to be a much more effective approach to the societies of the Third World.
If you're not willing to even name the main capitalist roaders in China in the 1970s, let alone provide evidence that they were consciously seeking to restore capitalism, then you shouldn't have asserted that there was "clearly" a conspiracy against Mao and socialism. In any case, if you can't deal with the issues at hand, then I have no choice but to assume that you can't defend your political positions.
Why, then, did the CPC support the PKI subordinating itself to the Indonesian state, and why did the PRC under Mao so often support bourgeois governments in the Third World, including Pinochet? Moreover, what exactly would "protracted armed struggle" look like in heavily urbanized societies?
Whether or not they are useful has nothing to do with the question, it doesn't matter that you say they are of no use outside of the third world, you are straying way of topic. You claim these qualities are not unique, that's up to YOU to prove. So get up off your intellectual posturing and just back up your original point, which was.....
You were saying?
I'm hurt
The issue at hand is what people have against Marxist-Leninists....nothing to do with Chinese history. If I feel like having a debate with you on this subject, I will do it in the appropriate thread. But think what you like, that's ok.
I identify as an anarcho-communist, however i'm not opposed to using the state as a catalyst for communist movement. It's just the mistakes made and the human rights violations committed, not by the Soviet Union as a whole, but in certain instances that make me hesitant to embrace the ideology. But I'm, admittedly, not that knowledgable about how the Soviet Union REALLY was, since I only grew up with the anti-soviet western media, so if anyone wants to give me a brief education, be my guest.
The usefulness or complexity of the points you mentioned is bound up with whether they are original theoretical contributions because if ideas like cultural revolution never attained the status of developed theories or arguments but were just sets of slogans or idioms then it's difficult to see why they should be viewed as theoretical contributions at all, even if Mao was original in his usage and repetition of those slogans and idioms. I mean, there were plenty of political leaders who were original in coming up with new slogans, but that doesn't mean they should be seen as theoreticians. As we've seen, even you, as someone who supports Mao and has the benefit of hindsight when it comes to the alleged restoration of capitalism in China, can't provide a developed account of why the cultural revolution was necessary or why capitalism was able to triumph in China despite the cultural revolution. In any case, I still hold that the points you mentioned are hardly original to Mao. To say that Mao was original in developing the concept of people's war, for example, ignores that military thinking and the use of military rhetoric was widespread in China during the late Qing and Republic, as exemplified by thinkers such as Zou Rong, and it also ignores that when the CPC found itself in the countryside Mao was only one of several military leaders and he was by no means the only leader to consider how the CPC might harness popular mobilization to aid its military efforts.
The concept of New Democracy has clear parallels in earlier Marxist thinking in both China and Russia. Li Dazhao was the first Chinese Marxist to argue that there were classes other than the working class in China that were exploited and which would be able to play a revolutionary role - he characterized China as a "proletarian nation" and also anticipated Mao in grasping the potential of the peasantry, at as a time when the main body of Marxist thought in China and Chen Duxiu in particular rejected any possibility that the peasantry would have more than a supporting role in a future revolution. It is also possible to draw a conceptual link between New Democracy and Lenin's concept of the Revolutionary Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Peasantry as in both cases there is an assumption that societies like China and Russia would need to have an extended period of non-socialist development and that they would experience this period under the political rule of a broad class coalition. Mao's own essay On New Democracy, written in 1940, indicates that the immediate stimulus for his elaboration of the concept was Sun Yat-sen and his Three People's Principles, as, on Mao's own account, these principles would form the basis of the economy and government during the New Democratic period.
Whilst I don't think that Mao was either original or valuable as a theorist, I am perfectly happy to recognize him as a brilliant analyst of Chinese rural society (I doubt that you or any of the other Stalinists on this board have read his 1930 Report from Xunwu, but you should) and military tactician. I'm quite partial to Bordiga's characterization of him as the last bourgeois romantic revolutionary.
The fact that you can't describe or explain how capitalism was restored in China is directly tied to what myself and others have identified as one of our main problems with "Marxist-Leninists", namely their anti-theoretical and anti-intellectual attitudes and overall lack of knowledge.
You have fundamental lack of understanding of why working class people like Spawn of Stalin, not to mention millions other proles and poor peasants globally turn to "Stalinism" and "Maoism", when you comprehend that than you might have a chance of actually understanding us.
"Seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand."
Hopefully one day I will have the faith
lol "their anti-theoretical and anti-intellectual attitudes and overall lack of knowledge" damn too bad us proletarians dont have as much time to read as you do cause we working. I do try though
love to know how the correct pro-theoretical and pro-intellectual attitude and overall great amount of knowledge is doing with that whole revolution thing. if only you could have exposed _all_ the great revolutionaries of history with your superior knowledge. the masses would be greatful.
To be fair, MLs outside the U.S. might just be the tired adherents of gerontocratic reenactment societies and labor bureaucracies, and the attendant mythologies that go along with it. In the U.S., and most of the Anglosphere, "official Communism" has never been anything but a small sect, and there's no intelligible motivations aside from ignorance and an attraction for radical chic and contrarianism to justify joining a ML group here.
All the MLs I've met are students who have a need to be perceived as "doing" something. Much effort is expended for what are essentially purposeless, unsuccessful acts of self-indulgent self-righteousness. The entire organized left in the U.S. tends to be middle class in content, with a few exceptions here and there. I don't remember the last time one made a meaningful or insightful contribution to theory and understanding, in fact, their commitment to a dead movement of apologia for crimes against the working class leads them to commit much of their time to merely apologizing for whatever group of substitutionist statists they look up to today. I mean of what value possibly could the ML fixation in the West with defending Zimbabwe and Mugabe in their papers actually have? There's this fixation with welfarism and moralism, connected to a self-righteousness for having "supported" the right "side" from a computer ten thousand miles away.
I find all of that hard to understand from the point of view of a balanced and rational person.
