What is Maoism ?

[ProletarianResurrection]

A crock of shit with a red flag on it.

You wit astounds me, would you care to elborate more though?

[black magick hustla]

Revolutionary Communism that is grounded in reality.

Its that simple.

lol maoism is the most utopian of all "marxist" tendencies. keep workin' and fightin' hard for the better saturday, except the weekend never comes and its just keep workin under the party cadre for the better tomorrow. the maoists wanna be politicians are as afraid of the underclasses revolting as the classical western capitalists, that is why they always rail off about having the "correct leadership", because they are the real leadership.

[Rooster]

Still waiting for the Trotskyite/Hoxhaite/Anarchist/Left-Communist revolution. You can moan and criticize all you want until, though. By the way, I already know what you're all gonna say -- "blowing up trains/massacring peasants/genocide/famine isn't going to bring the revolution" or some other shitty slander. I don't even care anymore, you guys are by every definition of the word completely irrelevant.

Where is the Maoist revolution that hasn't lead to capitalism?

[black magick hustla]

So you've seen the Dancer Upstairs? Well, I'm suitably impressed with your piercing insight into the world of Maoism or FARC or whatever. Its all a formless gray blob of tank parades and gulags anyhow, right?

idk whats dancer upstairs, but whatever im just an uncool scientist cant be a hip vegan stalinist artist hipster like u

[ComradeMan]

Where is the Maoist revolution that hasn't lead to capitalism?

You're reading my mind....

Maoism did not lead to the communist society that Marx envisaged and that presumably is the desired outcome of a lot of people here. In fact Maoism basically died with Mao and it's interesting to see how the RCP have moved away from Maoism whilst still awkwardly acknowledging its role. Even during the period of Maoism in China, many of its own goals were ultimately unsuccessful.

Before people start shouting about revisionists like modern versions of Hoxha they should also bear in mind that those "revisionists" grew up and came to power etc in Maoism. Are we to think that inherent in Maoism is its own downfall then?

So if we are to look at history then history demonstrates that a) Maoism as a system leads to state capitalism through its own dismantling and/or b) inherent to Maoism are the seeds of its own demise.

We could also add to this that some of the most dubious and downright vicious so-called "leftist" groups espouse Maoist theories although we ought to be careful of blaming the theory for the followers I admit.

Fundamentally the Maoist experiment did/does not work and a lot of people (have) died because of it.

[ProletarianResurrection]

Where is the Maoist revolution that hasn't lead to capitalism?

Trots like to spew this not noticing (paying attention Red Dave?) that the same could be said about Trotsky's genius as regards the Soviet Union, have you any idea of the massive problems that faced the revolution in China and can you acknowledge the fact that Mao wasnt all powerful? A great deal was achieved though which imensely benfitted millions of people. However the Trotskyites dont care at the end of the days about the millions of people condemned to ignorance, starvation and cruelty for their entire short lives, thats why they are Trots and not Maoists.

[ProletarianResurrection]

lol maoism is the most utopian of all "marxist" tendencies. keep workin' and fightin' hard for the better saturday, except the weekend never comes and its just keep workin under the party cadre for the better tomorrow. the maoists wanna be politicians are as afraid of the underclasses revolting as the classical western capitalists, that is why they always rail off about having the "correct leadership", because they are the real leadership.

Yes the concept of humanity arising and taking its own destiny firmly within its own hands frightens lazy bones, thats why you are a left communist and not Maoist.

[black magick hustla]

A great deal was achieved though which imensely benfitted millions of people. However the Trotskyites dont care at the end of the days about the millions of people condemned to ignorance, starvation and cruelty for their entire short lives, thats why they are Trots and not Maoists.

this could be said about a lot of "populist" capitalist parties that found themselves in favorable material specificities, not withstanding the maoists. i think china was bound to progress and become what is today regardless of what party had overseen its transformation.

[black magick hustla]

Yes the concept of humanity arising and taking its own destiny firmly within its own hands frightens lazy bones, thats why you are a left communist and not Maoist.

my bones are a lot of things def. not lazy tho. i am not into narodniki posturing, thats all

[ProletarianResurrection]

this could be said about a lot of "populist" capitalist parties that found themselves in favorable material specificities, not withstanding the maoists. i think china was bound to progress and become what is today regardless of what party had overseen its transformation.

Im sure you do, ignoring the fact that Africa with many natural resources hasnt progressed but had its progress choked by Imperialism, any thing to spit the glorious struggle and achievements of the Chinese people under the guidance of its Communist Party.

[Per Levy]

Lotta presumption there.

However while Left Communists ignore the harsh reality of labour aristocracy and stratification, and cheer on struggles (nothing wrong in this in itself) of the most pampered workers as if they have actual revolutionary potential while most of the worlds population are in pretty much total misery compared to them its hard to take your criticisms seriously.

you do know that labour aristocraty =/= working class of the "first world", right? also nice to be to show your solidarity and call workers in the "first world" pampered, thats pretty much a capaitalist argument wich is used to cut worker rights and wages.

Yes the concept of humanity arising and taking its own destiny firmly within its own hands frightens lazy bones, thats why you are a left communist and not Maoist.

so selling out workers to the capitalists of the world is now "humanity arising and taking its own destiny in its hands", cause thats what maoists parties did whenever they took power(dont worry that isnt bound to maoism alone).

Trots like to spew this not noticing (paying attention Red Dave?) that the same could be said about Trotsky's genius as regards the Soviet Union, have you any idea of the massive problems that faced the revolution in China and can you acknowledge the fact that Mao wasnt all powerful? A great deal was achieved though which imensely benfitted millions of people. However the Trotskyites dont care at the end of the days about the millions of people condemned to ignorance, starvation and cruelty for their entire short lives, thats why they are Trots and not Maoists.

really, stop with this "ite" bullshit, it makes you look so silly, especially when you spout out the dogma of maoism and yell about how holy you are.

[Smyg]

I love how obviously trolling this thread is.

[Per Levy]

Im sure you do, ignoring the fact that Africa with many natural resources hasnt progressed but had its progress choked by Imperialism, any thing to spit the glorious struggle and achievements of the Chinese people under the guidance of its Communist Party.

yeah and the "communist" party sold out this struggle and made china the sweat shop of the world, with so terrible working conditions that workers kill themself because of them or die because of the super low safety regulations. not to mention that chinese workers are super exploited but you dont care about the millions of chinese workers you just want to spout your dogma and how awsome maoism is.

[Tifosi]

Obviously Maoists are part of those material conditions. I think that was Mosfeld's whole point.

Have you read his post?

Still waiting for the Trotskyite/Hoxhaite/Anarchist/Left-Communist revolution.

I struggle to see what else this could be other than a liberal analysis of history. Revolutions happen because great men make them happen. Mao says this then Mao says that and what do you know, revolution happens. What else could this sentence possible mean?????

So they aren't down to specfic material conditions that force things to happen. You can't have it both ways, if your going to be a Maoist then Marxist analysis has to go out the window. Case in point being that you get Maoists in the USA, UK, Canada etc talking up "protracted people's war". Sure, if you where alive in Canada 200 years ago you could do that.

[ProletarianResurrection]

you do know that labour aristocraty =/= working class of the "first world", right? also nice to be to show your solidarity and call workers in the "first world" pampered, thats pretty much a capaitalist argument wich is used to cut worker rights and wages.

so selling out workers to the capitalists of the world is now "humanity arising and taking its own destiny in its hands", cause thats what maoists parties did whenever they took power(dont worry that isnt bound to maoism alone).

really, stop with this "ite" bullshit, it makes you look so silly, especially when you spout out the dogma of maoism and yell about how holy you are.

I dont know where to begin here, certainly workers in the first world are exploited however given the gulf between their exploitation and that of the neo-colonies they are not going to risk everything to rise up against their exploiters. Often in the real world they feel bound to their masters through all sorts of white nationalist crap and no amount of economic struggle for crumbs from the masters table is going to change that. Thats reality.

You seem to be forgetting the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution?

I would hope that you take the time to actually research the Chinese Revolution rather than swallow Red Dave's trite slogans.

[ProletarianResurrection]

yeah and the "communist" party sold out this struggle and made china the sweat shop of the world, with so terrible working conditions that workers kill themself because of them or die because of the super low safety regulations. not to mention that chinese workers are super exploited but you dont care about the millions of chinese workers you just want to spout your dogma and how awsome maoism is.

Western propaganda is so lovely, but dont worry Im sure you will find some pure nice white revolutionaires from the first thirty years of the last century who is so cool and because he never had to deal with the real challenges and responsibilities of power.

[Commissar Rykov]

Western propaganda is so lovely, but dont worry Im sure you will find some pure nice white revolutionaires from the first thirty years of the last century who is so cool and because he never had to deal with the real challenges and responsibilities of power.

Are you admitting to supporting Third Worldism? I hope so then you can get restricted like the dipshit you are.

[mosfeld]

Are you admitting to supporting Third Worldism? I hope so then you can get restricted like the dipshit you are.

Are you reading the same post as I am? Where is the indication of third worldism, exactly? Be precise.

[ProletarianResurrection]

Are you admitting to supporting Third Worldism? I hope so then you can get restricted like the dipshit you are.

No Im not.

The working class in the first is exploited and also to a certain extent oppressed.

However I was pointing out that people have a tendency to romanticize movements in the first world that ultimately failed and our long forgotten by the masses because they seem "nicer" than the USSR, PRC, Socialist Albania, the DPRK, etc.

Why is this?

[Jose Gracchus]

Lotta presumption there.

However while Left Communists ignore the harsh reality of labour aristocracy and stratification, and cheer on struggles (nothing wrong in this in itself) of the most pampered workers as if they have actual revolutionary potential while most of the worlds population are in pretty much total misery compared to them its hard to take your criticisms seriously.

Marxism and class struggle isn't vulgar revanchist populism whipped up with romantics you read about from Robespierre.

Oh, and Lenin's theory of imperialism is bullshit. Reformism is not due to a 'labor aristocracy' or 'superprofits', and export of capital is not the "primary contradiction" in core-periphery (to borrow your lingo) domination.

However I was pointing out that people have a tendency to romanticize movements in the first world that ultimately failed and our long forgotten by the masses because they seem "nicer" than the USSR, PRC, Socialist Albania, the DPRK, etc.

Why is this?

Too bad the workers and peasants who 'ruled' those 'less nice' societies didn't lift a finger to defend 'their state' and 'their property form' from IMF advisors and neoliberals. Why don't you drop theory from the 1890s-1930s which has not any roadmap to offer for the 21st century and the real domination of capital?