Results 61 to 80 of 245
Stalin's Centrist Capitalist ideas with more fancy posters thrown in.
The critique against mosfeld's assertion is 50% correct and, at the same time, his phrase is 50% correct; it just need development. Allow me to do it, comrade:
Still waiting ... for a proletarian revolution mainly led by ... a Trotskyist, Hoxhaist (anti-Maoist Marxist-Leninists who appeared after the Sino-Albanian Split) or Anarchist ... oriented revolutionary group or political party.
Instead, what we see nowadays is that the crushing majority of revolutionary movements struggling for a proletarian revolution, correctly defending the people's war against imperialism and capitalism, are influenced by Maoism. And they are more efficient than those groups who just want to be a piece of the government; but without a revolution, without the violent destruction of the capitalist structure, they'll never achieve good political power (as comrade Lenin taught "Without power, everything else is just an illusion") and will forever wait for a "communist" president to be elected.
I don't know if there's a Hoxhaist movement leading some sort of armed struggle today. At least here they have some reformist stances like propagandizing the national elections, sending militants to participate and try to get elected, as a good way to achieve socialism, as seen in their website on 2010 (http://pcrbrasil.org/eleicoes-2010/).
People who say we're "class collaborationist" and other bs like this act like parrots of the anticommunist propaganda and don't know almost anything about Maoism. I suggest you access the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist group some day, there's a study guide there, and maybe you learn a bit before criticizing. Ok?
Another view of Stalin, by Ludo Martens (RIP)
http://marxism.halkcephesi.net/Ludo%20Martens/
Trotskyism, Counter-Revolution In Disguise, by Moissaye J. Olgin
http://www.marxists.org/archive/olgi...yism/index.htm
The Red Comrades Documentation Project
http://redcomrades.byethost5.com/red.../articles.html
This is the guerrilla war strategy of encircling the cities. Notice that it makes no mention of any relationship between the rural, presumably peasant, army and the urban working class, which is the class that much obtain power for the achievement of socialism.
This is rhetoric which covers up an authoritarian party structure.
This is the philosophical cover for class collaboration. The 'principal contradiction' is held to be between the block of four classes and the comprador bourgeoisie. This leads the working class into an alliance with its enemy: the bourgeoisie.
We have seen how well this worked in China and how well it is working in Nepal as we post this. It is class collaboration which leads to capitalism.
This means that when counter-revolution occurs, it will be explained away as part of the historic process.
To the above we might add:
This element means that having invited the bourgeoisie into a coalition with the working class, bourgeois sympathizers will take root within the party and a struggle against them must take place. Guess who won in China and Nepal?
Revisionism, apparently appearing from nowhere, raises its ugly head and takes over the party. Its presence is never explained in terms of the class nature of the party's politics or its leadership. Revisionism is mysterious, evil and everywhere. "(They're all revisionists Comrade, except for thee and me, and sometimes I wonder about thee.")
Plz note that mosfeld in the midst of the lethal crisis of Maoism in Nepal, has me on ignore, so don't expect and answer from him.
RED DAVE
Last edited by RED DAVE; 25th September 2011 at 01:07.
can read the newspaper.
Everything I know about Maoism I learned in Katmandu.
That group does not, as far as I know, permit general access. Too scary for them. (I could be wrong on that.)
I find it fabulous that the Maoists are on the offensive in the midst of the biggest Maoist sell-out since I don't know when.
RED DAVE
What a crock of obscurantist, illiterate garbage. Does MLM or whatever you call your baby-murdering-creed that First World hardmen rub themselves to this year still call for the Bloc of Four Classes? Asking the workers to participate in a 'bloc' with other 'classes' including the 'progressive' or 'patriotic' bourgeoisie, is not class-collaborationism how, exactly?
The Bolsheviks did not wage "people's war" and yet managed to achieve, with the soviets, the destruction (largely non-violently, as it happens, but not without some recourse to the force of the armed class) of the Russian state and indigenous Russian bourgeoisie.
Where has "people's war" led the Nepalese Maoists? Into playing the faithful role of Kerensky. Actions speak louder than hardmen words.
An additional and crucial point, as illustrated here is that Maoism has no strategy for developed countries.
Do they really think that people's war is going to be waged in the USA, the UK, France, Germany, etc.? Are we going to the mountains and jungles of Kansas to organize among the peasants there to build an army to encircle the cities?
With a few exceptions, the advanced industrial countries are urban, proletarianized, relatively small, compact and densely populated. The logical conclusion of the above principle is Third Worldism.
RED DAVE
Although the history of the USSR between the death of Lenin and the consolidation of power by Stalin is complex, one thing you cannot lay at Trotsky's feet is the growth of the power of the bureaucracy and state capitalism, so screw you.
Yes.
It's rarely a matter of Mao but a matter of Maoism.
That's the standard liberal argument. We made conditions better, so state capialism, which led to private capitalism, was justified. Considering the fact that , given the principle of permanent revolution, espoused by the Bolsheviks, China could have made a really "great leap forward" into socialism in the late 1940s, this argument is bogus
Ohhhhhhhhh, you Maoiewowists is such good widdle guys, and dose bad old Twots is so evil! Dose Twots want the woikez to be iggorant and starf and be crueled on. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh.
How the fuck do you Maoists sleep at night?
RED DAVE
I love how the right-wing troll knows exactly what to ask to provoke a long, heated "debate" between leftists.
Maoism is chinese menshevism. It focuses on the peasents instead of workers however. i'm not 100 percent on this, but I think the mensheviks or the SR's which were more or less the same thing rooted their support in the peasentry. I just think its funny that maoists complain at trotskyists for apparently being involved in bourgeois governments when that's their entire theory on how the revolution would carry out. I can't remember any trotskyists in bourgeois gov'ts though, but then again I don't know much about trotskyist history as of yet.
For student organizing in california, join this group!
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=1036
http://socialistorganizer.org/
"[I]t’s hard to keep potent historical truths bottled up forever. New data repositories are uncovered. New, less ideological, generations of historians grow up. In the late 1980s and before, Ann Druyan and I would routinely smuggle copies of Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution into the USSR—so our colleagues could know a little about their own political beginnings.”
--Carl Sagan
Please don't be confused by the old farts blowing off steam
Nepal aside, there is no strategic orientation or theoretical justification in Maoism (insofar as it can be called Maoism) for entering bourgeois governments as such.
New Democracy is actually analogous to "Permanent Revolution" of the Trotskyists. It is decisively envisioned as a stage of the dictatorship of the proletariat in societies that have not had a bourgeois-democratic revolution. If a society has not undergone a bourgeois revolution, then obviously it is up to the working class to do it in the current era since the bourgeoisie is no longer revolutionary.
If you don't believe me, go to the source and try to find where Mao says the bourgeoisie can have any leading role.
Why should the revolution be a bourgeois democratic one in such countries? It makes no sense, why not just go to a socialist revolution? we aren't bourgeois capitalists, we're fucking socialists! how could you deny that this is menshevism?
For student organizing in california, join this group!
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=1036
http://socialistorganizer.org/
"[I]t’s hard to keep potent historical truths bottled up forever. New data repositories are uncovered. New, less ideological, generations of historians grow up. In the late 1980s and before, Ann Druyan and I would routinely smuggle copies of Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution into the USSR—so our colleagues could know a little about their own political beginnings.”
--Carl Sagan
"bourgeois-democratic revolution" is generic marxist terminology, Trots included. Read the article.
Don't make the effort bro, 'encircling the cities' makes less and less sense as most of the third world is metropolized into one large favella-slum agglomerate anyhow. Some of the third-worldist loons on here betray a fundamental racism, writing off all workers from "the first world" (whatever that may be) but making the odd exception for things like the black panther party because, you know, they're darkies right?
"Of Man's first disobedience, and the fruit
Of that forbidden tree..."
- John Milton -
"The place of the worst barbarism is that modern forest that makes use of us, this forest of chimneys and bayonets, machines and weapons, of strange inanimate beasts that feed on human flesh"
- Amadeo Bordiga
It is generic Marxist terminology, but tht doesn't mean that Marxists are obliged to carry out this revolution in bourgeois terms. The Bolsheviks taught us, almost 100 years ago, that the bourgeoisie was incapable, in an age or imperialism, of carrying out this revolution. Only the proletariat could carry out the "bourgeois-democratic revolution," and it could only do that by skipping over the capitalist stage and going for socialism, holding on as best they could until the revolutions took place in the advanced countries.
Maoism stood this on its head by placing the working class at the service of the bourgeoisie to carry out the bourgeois revolution for the capitalists. This is what happened in China. This is what just happened in Nepal.
RED DAVE
Last edited by RED DAVE; 26th September 2011 at 14:55.
Fart fart.Please don't be confused by the old farts blowing off steam
Sure. But how come the Chinese Communist Party and now the Nepalese Maoist party have both done this? The answer, from the Maoist side, is REVISIONISM. But the fact is that today's revisionist was yesterday's Maoist hero.
Bullshit. Permanent revolution does not countenance an alliance with the bourgeoisie.
You can "envision" it any way you want. The fact is that New Democracy is collaboration with the bourgeoisie and leads to capitalism.
Yes, it is. And the last thing that the working class needs to do in making the bourgeois revolution on its own terms, which is permanent revolution, is to ally itself with the bourgeoisie, which, history shows us, has its own agenda and, in this situation is stronger than the working class. (Especially with a sell-out Maoist party as the nominal leadership of the working class.)
Mao can say, and you can quote, anything you want. Fact is that Maoism, with its famous block of four class and New Democracy, is an actual or de facto alliance with the bourgeoisie, leading to capitalism.
Maoism in Nepal was, one more time, true to itself.
RED DAVE
xmfd, that was hilarious, usually you're more serious and berating but that was straight up comedic.Fart fart.
Oh and uhh.. good comments on the other stuff too [/avoiding moderation or something]
Don't be ridiculous. Revolutions aren't made by Leninists, Trotskyists, Maoists or anything other ideology. It is made by the proletariat. Only such an abstract reading of history could reduce one to such a conclusion. The Russian revolution was carried out by the proletariat which forced Lenin and Trotsky into following it who then forced the rest of the party into following them, otherwise they would have been swept away into the same dust bin of history as the Menshiviks.
How is people's war efficient? How does that apply to advanced, urbanised western countries? How does this mechanism lead to the proletariat being the head of the revolution instead of lead by a revolutionary clique?
Who, exactly, is waiting for a communist president?
I refer you to any of Red Dave's posts about Nepal.
Where is the proletarian revolution that hasn't lead to capitalism? That's a fallacy:
"A" happened after "B"; So "A" is related to "B"! What a "brilliant" conclusion!
The things is, in any socialist country the unorganized bourgeoisie will try to deviate the party, creating an ideological struggle against the revolutionaries, that's what Mao called the two-line struggle. But Mao defended a proletarian line, and that's an undeniable fact, so saying "Maoism lead to capitalism" is complete bulls*it. What was the Greap Leap Forward and the Great Cultural Proletarian Revolution if not the big struggles against capitalism and the reactionary Confucianism?
Another view of Stalin, by Ludo Martens (RIP)
http://marxism.halkcephesi.net/Ludo%20Martens/
Trotskyism, Counter-Revolution In Disguise, by Moissaye J. Olgin
http://www.marxists.org/archive/olgi...yism/index.htm
The Red Comrades Documentation Project
http://redcomrades.byethost5.com/red.../articles.html
Maybe its not Maoism that is the problem, maybe its authoritarian regiems pretending to be socialist.
Ok, I won't be You anymore. Thanks.
Of course, but a proletarian political group has to lead, that is the "vanguard of the proletariat".
Yes. Without the proletariat + without a revolutionary party (holding a revolutionary theory and practice) + without the right moment to deliver a finishing blow to the bourgeois government = no revolution.
It's not my conclusion, but you tried to make it mine, so you could attack me better. Happily you're wrong!
No doubt. Carried out by the proletariat, led by a revolutionary party of the proletariat, the Leninist-type party.
The petty-bourgeois Mensheviks, Makhnovists, SR, etc. were also in the Russian Revolution. Trotsky followed Menshevism and was one of the biggest rivals of Lenin. Lenin followed a proletarian point-of-view instead.
Nobody forced anyone. The party followed Lenin because he emerged as a natural leader holding revolutionary stances. Same for Stalin. And the opposite for Trotsky.
Just look at Nepal, India, Philipines.
http://pcr-rcp.ca/en/programme/10/
http://revcom.us/margorp/a-pw.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_guerilla
In rural, or semi-feudal, countries: "from the countryside to the cities".
In urbanized countries: "from the outskirts to the capitals".
There's no such a thing as a "revolutionary clique" outside the class struggle. A proletarian-oriented party is in practice within the proletariat.
So-called communist parties, engaged in elections, often denying other much more revolutionary struggles.
Red Dave?
Another view of Stalin, by Ludo Martens (RIP)
http://marxism.halkcephesi.net/Ludo%20Martens/
Trotskyism, Counter-Revolution In Disguise, by Moissaye J. Olgin
http://www.marxists.org/archive/olgi...yism/index.htm
The Red Comrades Documentation Project
http://redcomrades.byethost5.com/red.../articles.html
