Mao

[Desert Fox]

Well last night I saw a docu about him and the chinese revolution. He caught my attention and I was wondering if anyone of you knows more about him. I find a book on the net I could maybe buy to learn more about his views on things it is called "On Guerrilla Warfare TSE-TUNG, MAO" is that book any good, I dunno much about the person and books published around him, so that is the reason why I ask it here ...

[atlanticche]

did he even use guerilla warfare

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Originally posted by atlanticche@Oct 28 2003, 03:46 PM
did he even use guerilla warfare

umm... yes

And to Desert Fox,

I've heard his "Red Book" is supposed to be his most famous. Now, "Red Book" is a nickname--what is it really called? Someone can answer this quickly.

[Dhul Fiqar]

"Quotations of Chairman Mao Tsetung" - it's not bad but very bland and basically it is just a collection of quotes.

--- G.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Thanks Dhul... seems like a lot of Maoists swear by it, though... it seems to affect people dramatically (I would not know personally--never read it)

[Unrelenting Steve]

The little red book is terrible, no complete thoughts, its all very disjionted and actualy overall uninsightful. I am busy reading a book: Marxism, Maoism and Utopianism, where they basicly look at Maoism and where its differant from Marxism, and where it was Utopian, and whether that was necssarily bad, as everyone seems to think it was.... It almost converted me to Marxism (well i guess i havent finished reading it, so that statement might be premature)...Alternativley you can read a book by the same auther (who seems to be an expert in this feild (Maurice Meisner)) called; Mao's China- that would probably suit what your asking for better, but the other is by far the more interesting selection....

[elijahcraig]

"Quotations of Chairman Mao Tsetung" - it's not bad but very bland and basically it is just a collection of quotes.

Hence, the name.

The little red book is terrible, no complete thoughts, its all very disjionted and actualy overall uninsightful.

It was designed as a short covering of Mao's thought, not a 1000 page book on theory.

I am busy reading a book: Marxism, Maoism and Utopianism, where they basicly look at Maoism and where its differant from Marxism, and where it was Utopian, and whether that was necssarily bad, as everyone seems to think it was.... It almost converted me to Marxism (well i guess i havent finished reading it, so that statement might be premature)...Alternativley you can read a book by the same auther (who seems to be an expert in this feild (Maurice Meisner)) called; Mao's China- that would probably suit what your asking for better, but the other is by far the more interesting selection....

Marxism IS Maoism, Maoism IS Marxism; it is an extension of Marxism, as Leninism was.

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by Che y Marijuana@Oct 29 2003, 07:17 AM
you can't say Marxism is Maoism. You can logically assert an opinion that Maoism is Marxism, but it's illogical to say the opposite is also true.

that's like saying food is pork. No matter how much you like Maoism, it doesn't make Marxism equivalent to it. Just by saying that it is an extension of Marxism, you are already stating that there is more to it than Marxism, it can be a brand of Marxism, or an off-shoot, but Marxism cannot be Maoism.

and I think this is a perfect example of my comment about Marx not being god. flying the flag of Marxism means nothing. it is the ideas within the ideology that matter, and having, or not having it, or refusing to admit fine-tuning it, should make no difference as to the validity of any ideology.

What I have learned here about the various forms within the communisme is that each one has its roots in marxism but they quit vary when you want to compare with each other. So Che has a point, but I gonna check those books out, since he is a quit intresting figure in history and what he has achieved is quit remarkable

[crazy comie]

maoism isn't marxism it is stalinism.

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by crazy comie@Oct 29 2003, 09:40 AM
maoism isn't marxism it is stalinism.

Just because they are seen as the two red tsars means that they are alike. Altough they surely shared some ideas but I doubt that they are the same. You shouldn't really compare them both, since one is restricted here and the other one not

[Saint-Just]

I can't believe anyone can say 'Quotations...' is bland or boring, its a great book. For anyone with political interest it is a book of great interest, and for communists a book of profound wisdom. Some quotes may be less interesting than others.

His other important books would probably be 'On Khrushchev's Phoney Communism' and 'New Democracy'.

[Dhul Fiqar]

The general consensus in China is that it is mind-numbingly boring. I found it a lot more interesting than anyone else I met there - but you got to admit it's as bland as bland can be in several places...

--- G.

[Dhul Fiqar]

In the conditions prevailing in China today, the contradictions among the people comprise the contradictions within the working class, the contradictions within the peasantry, the contradictions within the intelligentsia, the contradictions between the working class and the peasantry, the contradictions between the workers and peasants on the one hand and the intellectuals on the other, the contradictions between the working class and other sections of the working people on the one hand and the national bourgeoisie on the other, the contradictions within the national bourgeoisie, and so on

I barely got through that sentance without taking a nap - I know the subjectmatter is great and the ideas are to a certain extent very positive and exciting - but DEAR GOD the presentation SUCKS =D

--- G.

[Desert Fox]

Originally posted by Chairman Mao@Oct 29 2003, 01:59 PM
I can't believe anyone can say 'Quotations...' is bland or boring, its a great book. For anyone with political interest it is a book of great interest, and for communists a book of profound wisdom. Some quotes may be less interesting than others.

His other important books would probably be 'On Khrushchev's Phoney Communism' and 'New Democracy'.

Thank you CM, I see you a bit as the leading authority on maoisme. I can be wrong tough but your nick and avatar point that way. I don't doubt you know lots of the man and would love what you find of the great man that is mao. He way have his rough edges he done alot for his country ...

[Saint-Just]

The majority of people find political works mind numbingly boring, I cannot think of one that is not seen as such. They are only interesting to those who have a great interest in politics. And, I think that the Red Book is fairly interesting if you compare it to something like Das Kapital. With a lot of people though, books like 'Quotations...' and even more so 'What Is To Be Done?', upon their publication these books were read with great excitement in a single sitting, cover to cover, because of their great importance. Here are some good quotes from the book:


Classes struggle, some classes triumph, others are eliminated. Such is history; such is the history of civilization for thousands of years. To interpret history from this viewpoint is historical materialism; standing in opposition to this viewpoint is historical idealism.

Every Communist must grasp the truth; "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.

I have said that all the reputedly powerful reactionaries are merely paper tigers. The reason is that they are divorced from the people. Look! Was not Hitler a paper tiger? Was Hitler not overthrown? I also said that the tsar of Russia, the emperor of China and Japanese imperialism were all paper tigers. As we know, they were all overthrown. U.S. imperialism has not yet been overthrown and it has the atom bomb. I believe it also will be overthrown. It, too, is a paper tiger.

The masses are the real heroes, while we ourselves are often childish and ignorant, and without this understanding, it is impossible to acquire even the most rudimentary knowledge.

Who are our enemies? Who are our friends?... Our enemies are all those in league with imperialism... Whoever sides with the revolutionary people is a revolutionary. Whoever sides with imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat-capitalism is a counter-revolutionary. Whomever sides with the revolutionary people in words only but acts otherwise is a revolutionary in speech. Whoever sides with the revolutionary people in deed as well as in word is a revolutionary in the full sense.

After the enemies with guns have been wiped out, there will still be enemies without guns

Thank you CM, I see you a bit as the leading authority on maoisme. I can be wrong tough but your nick and avatar point that way. I don't doubt you know lots of the man and would love what you find of the great man that is mao. He way have his rough edges he done alot for his country ...

I do not know anyone here who does know as much about the Chinese revolution as I do, however it is not unlikely that there are people here who do.

Mao did indeed do a lot for China. From the early 20's he fought for Chinese independance against the Japanese imperialists. It is evident in the Red Book that he has great wisdom to expound on the nature of imperialism, and indeed he opposed imperialism ferociously all his life. He called on the USSR to ally with China to create strong opposition to the U.S. imperialists in the 60's, at the time he said the east wind was prevailing over the west wind, that the socialist camp was stronger than the imperialist nations. However the USSR had embraced revisionism of Marxism-Leninism at this point.

Mao was often compared as a theoritician to be as great as Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin in his lifetime. He had also proved himself to be an invaluable individual in uniting China and leading the revolution. His rise to leadership in the Communist Party came from the repeated evidence of his skill as a military tactician and a leader. Everytime he was given a chance to make an impact he could turn the tide of conflict with the KMT in favour of the communists. People developed great trust in his leadership.

I think there is criticisms that could be directed at him. Whether it was his fault directly or not China did not develop economically as it should have when he had command over economic plans. In addition, the cultural revolution did not seem as straight forward as it should have been. Mao himself having to constantly deliberate over rival Red Gaurd factions. It was to some extent not his fault, China was overburdened with carrying the red flag of socialism once Khrushchev came to power in the USSR. Mao foresaw victorious conflict with the U.S., however the USSR was undertaking a policy of 'peaceful cooperation' with the U.S.

[Unrelenting Steve]

Originally posted by elijahcraig@Oct 28 2003, 11:49 PM

The little red book is terrible, no complete thoughts, its all very disjionted and actualy overall uninsightful.

It was designed as a short covering of Mao's thought, not a 1000 page book on theory.

I am busy reading a book: Marxism, Maoism and Utopianism, where they basicly look at Maoism and where its differant from Marxism, and where it was Utopian, and whether that was necssarily bad, as everyone seems to think it was.... It almost converted me to Marxism (well i guess i havent finished reading it, so that statement might be premature)...Alternativley you can read a book by the same auther (who seems to be an expert in this feild (Maurice Meisner)) called; Mao's China- that would probably suit what your asking for better, but the other is by far the more interesting selection....

Marxism IS Maoism, Maoism IS Marxism; it is an extension of Marxism, as Leninism was.

Maoism is very Utopian, something that Marx looked down on- read the book I suggested, any true Marxist would have said Mao was mad from the get go.

Marxism= become advanced capitalist then go communist/socialist, Mao wanted to deurbanise everything!!!!!! Something Im sure Marx would have disagreed with- a quote from my book; "For Marx the city was a symbol of historical progress". So Marxism would have seen Maosim as reactionary, which seems to hold to what happened, now finaly China is practicing a more pure bread Marxist-Leninism.

I agree: Marxist-Lennism is a type of Marxism, I however do not think that Maoism has enough in common with Marxism to call one anything close to the other. Its some form of socialism, somewhere in the Utopian sector, which im sure everyone knows is the oppiste to Marxism- the scientific evolution of sociaty, rather than the unrealistic practicly and historicly unpaved route of Utopianism.

To tell the truth I know at least some stuff about Maosim and Marxism, and very little on Lenin, my current understanding is that Leninism was just: a socialist party must take the steps needed to get to, or engineer, the Marxist flow chart of progression (advanced capitalism->centralisation->communism->decentralisation/breaking down of the state ect.). would neone like to broaden or correct my current understanding?

[synthesis]

It is evident in the Red Book that he has great wisdom to expound on the nature of imperialism, and indeed he opposed imperialism ferociously all his life.

Don't you think the invasion of Tibet could be construed as imperialist? (Not that I oppose it, really.)

[synthesis]

To tell the truth I know at least some stuff about Maosim and Marxism, and very little on Lenin, my current understanding is that Leninism was just: a socialist party must take the steps needed to get to, or engineer, the Marxist flow chart of progression (advanced capitalism->centralisation->communism->decentralisation/breaking down of the state ect.). would neone like to broaden or correct my current understanding?

Leninism is the belief that an elite vanguard must establish socialism for the proletariat because the proletariat is too disorganized to revolt and create its dictatorship.

There are also certain concepts such as the 'labor aristocracy' wherein it is asserted that the working class of the industrialized nations is too comfortable to revolt since all the real exploitation and oppression is enacted upon the proletariat of Third World nations and therefore the industrialized proletariat will side with the bourgeoisie in class matters.

[elijahcraig]

you can't say Marxism is Maoism. You can logically assert an opinion that Maoism is Marxism, but it's illogical to say the opposite is also true.

that's like saying food is pork. No matter how much you like Maoism, it doesn't make Marxism equivalent to it. Just by saying that it is an extension of Marxism, you are already stating that there is more to it than Marxism, it can be a brand of Marxism, or an off-shoot, but Marxism cannot be Maoism.

and I think this is a perfect example of my comment about Marx not being god. flying the flag of Marxism means nothing. it is the ideas within the ideology that matter, and having, or not having it, or refusing to admit fine-tuning it, should make no difference as to the validity of any ideology.

If Maoism is the logical extension of Marxism into another era of economic materialism, then yes, it is Marxism. Because Marxism is not stagnant and is an ever-changing field of theory—without the extension of Maoism, Marxism is not fit for the world of Imperialism in this era.

Though I tend to not see very many differences between Leninism and Maoism.

maoism isn't marxism it is stalinism.

Can you prove this or explain the relation between the two? And the differences between the two?

Maoism is very Utopian, something that Marx looked down on- read the book I suggested, any true Marxist would have said Mao was mad from the get go.

Marxism= become advanced capitalist then go communist/socialist, Mao wanted to deurbanise everything!!!!!! Something Im sure Marx would have disagreed with- a quote from my book; "For Marx the city was a symbol of historical progress". So Marxism would have seen Maosim as reactionary, which seems to hold to what happened, now finaly China is practicing a more pure bread Marxist-Leninism.

Considering he tried to rapidly industrialize the country in the Great Leap Forward, your “argument” is quite useless.

I agree: Marxist-Lennism is a type of Marxism, I however do not think that Maoism has enough in common with Marxism to call one anything close to the other. Its some form of socialism, somewhere in the Utopian sector, which im sure everyone knows is the oppiste to Marxism- the scientific evolution of sociaty, rather than the unrealistic practicly and historicly unpaved route of Utopianism.

Maoism is basically Leninism built for the third world.

To tell the truth I know at least some stuff about Maosim and Marxism, and very little on Lenin, my current understanding is that Leninism was just: a socialist party must take the steps needed to get to, or engineer, the Marxist flow chart of progression (advanced capitalism->centralisation->communism->decentralisation/breaking down of the state ect.). would neone like to broaden or correct my current understanding?

Read “The State and Revolution”.

Leninism is the belief that an elite vanguard must establish socialism for the proletariat because the proletariat is too disorganized to revolt and create its dictatorship.

It is organization of the proletariat for revolution.

Do you mean to tell me you foresee a spontaneously organized revolution by people who have no party or organization previously?

There are also certain concepts such as the 'labor aristocracy' wherein it is asserted that the working class of the industrialized nations is too comfortable to revolt since all the real exploitation and oppression is enacted upon the proletariat of Third World nations and therefore the industrialized proletariat will side with the bourgeoisie in class matters.

It is basically that the Imperialist nation is too powerful for a revolution to work. And that when the Imperialist nation spreads its army out too far over the third world for superprofits, revolution then becomes possible.