What is Maoism ?

[Rodrigo]

Maybe its not Maoism that is the problem, maybe its authoritarian regiems pretending to be socialist.

This phrase is nonsense. Any "regime" will be authoritarian until the higher phase of communism don't come.

[Rodrigo]

Fart fart.

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

So the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward didn't try to destroy capitalism? Interesting.

[Rooster]

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?

Oh shush. Where is the proletarian revolution that hasn't been crushed by ideological purists? Stalin's revolution from above crushed any opposition and centralised the powers, even more so since Lenin. The same with Mao. Except that Mao based his ideological leanings on Stalin rather than Lenin. The block of four classes and new democracy show the class collaborationist character of maoism.

And secondly, how the fuck can you have bourgeoisie in a socialist country?

Thirdly, look at every Maoist revolution. What has it lead to? Capitalism. History have proven this.

[Rooster]

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.

The rest of your post is anti-worker (the proletariat needs to be lead despite history showing that it was the so called vanguard parties that were lead by the proletariat). This is plainly wrong. Lenin and Trotsky were united on pushing the "all power to the soviets" line because they had to. Stalin and co were content with following the menshivik line at the time of co-operating with the provisional government (and the bourgeoisie). So Lenin followed the proletarian line and Stalin didn't?

[Rodrigo]

Where is the proletarian revolution that hasn't been crushed by ideological purists?

Infantile excuse to blame the Bolsheviks for what happened later. If there were not "ideological purism" and the ideological struggle of the proletarian line against opportunist petty-bourgeois elements like Trotsky, Zinoviev and Bukharin...the restoration of capitalism would be faster.

Stalin's revolution from above

False premise from anticommunist common sense. The development of communism in USSR didn't occur the same way in every place and each socialist republic had the right to separate from USSR.

crushed any opposition

What to say about the Left Opposition in the CPSU... Many oppositionists were executed later not for being oppositional (and not "by Stalin"), but for being counter-revolutionary sabotagers who preferred to defame Stalin and the construction of communism in USSR instead of building it.

and centralised the powers

The concept of democracy that Stalin and his supporters in the Party leadership wished to inaugurate in the Soviet Union would necessarily involve a qualitative change in the societal role of the Bolshevik Party.

Those documents that were accessible to researchers did allow us to understand . . . that already by the end of the 1930s determined attempts were being undertaken to separate the Party from the state and to limit in a substantive manner the Party's role in the life of the country. (Zhukov, Tayny 8)

Stalin and supporters continued this struggle against opposition from other elements in the Bolshevik Party, resolutely but with diminishing chances for success, until Stalin died in March 1953. Lavrentii Beria's determination to continue this same struggle seems to be the real reason Khrushchev and others murdered him, either judicially, by trial on trumped-up charges in December 1953, or -- as much evidence suggests -- through literal murder, the previous June.

Article 3 of the 1936 Constitution reads, "In the U.S.S.R. all power belongs to the working people of town and country as represented by the Soviets of Working People's Deputies." The Communist Party is mentioned in Article 126 as "the vanguard of the working people in their struggle to strengthen and develop the socialist system and is the leading core of all organizations of the working people, both public and state." That is, the Party was to lead organizations, but not the legislative or executive organs of the state. (1936 Constitution; Zhukov, Tayny 29-30)

Stalin seems to have believed that, once the Party was out of direct control over society, its role should be confined to agitation and propaganda, and participation in the selection of cadres. What would this have meant? Perhaps something like this.

The Party would revert to its essential function of winning people to the ideals of communism as they understood it.

This would mean the end of cushy sinecure-type jobs, and a reversion to the style of hard work and selfless dedication that characterized the Bolsheviks during the Tsarist period, the Revolution and Civil War, the period of NEP, and the very hard period of crash industrialization and collectivization. During these periods Party membership, for most, meant hard work and sacrifice, often among non-Party members, many of whom were hostile to the Bolsheviks. It meant the need for a real base among the masses. (Zhukov, KP Nov. 13 02; Mukhin, Ubiystvo)

Except that Mao based his ideological leanings on Stalin rather than Lenin. The block of four classes and new democracy show the class collaborationist character of maoism.

Maoism is also based on Marx, Engels and Lenin.

The "block of four classes" was for the anti-imperialist, anti-Japanese period and Mao made clear the differences between the Kuomintang and the CCP, between the national bourgeoisie and the proletariat, but you don't know since you never studied Mao Zedong, just the critique about him, who distort his works citing out-of-context or incomplete phrases, which lead to a wrong analysis of Maoism.

And secondly, how the fuck can you have bourgeoisie in a socialist country?

The fact the bourgeoisie continue to exist in a socialist country can be seen in any socialist country. In the "minor phase of communism" class war continues (and is strengthened) and the remnants of the previous, capitalist society too. And as history proves, they create an ideological struggle inside the party, against the revolutionaries (like Lenin, Stalin or Mao). That's not something we can change from the very beginning. But using this fact as a way to show "Maoists like the bourgeoisie" is pure treachery, opportunism and ignorance.

Thirdly, look at every Maoist revolution. What has it lead to? Capitalism. History have proven this.

For how long you'll continue with this simplistic criticism? Maoist revolutions led to socialist countries and the development of communism. Just because some people, e.g. Xiaoping and Prachanda, distorted Mao's ideas and presented themselves as true followers of Maoism, doesn't mean they really are Maoists. Using the same logic, we should blame Lenin and Stalin for other people in the CPSU not following later a proletarian and revolutionary line, restoring capitalism. Of course this is entirely wrong. The two-line struggle inside the communist party naturally happen sometime because the contradictions of society aren't overcome just because the bourgeois government fell. POLITICS IS NOT POKÉMON!

[RGacky3]

This phrase is nonsense. Any "regime" will be authoritarian until the higher phase of communism don't come.

... No ... Just because you say so does'nt make it true.

[RED DAVE]

So the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward didn't try to destroy capitalism? Interesting.

Since (a) the economy was "owned" by the state, and (b) surplus value was being extracted from the workers and (c) the workers had no control over that surplus value, the proper term for the Maoist regime in China was state capitalism.

If the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap forward ended capitalism, how was it able to come back in China within 15 years or so after the Cultural Revolution, without a civil war?

Maoism: The Menshevism of our time.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

The things is, in any socialist country the unorganized bourgeoisie will try to deviate the party

How would they get into the party unless the leadership of the party let them in?

creating an ideological struggle against the revolutionaries, that's what Mao called the two-line struggle.

Of course you'll have struggle against capitalists in the party, if you permit them in.

But Mao defended a proletarian line, and that's an undeniable fact

A line on paper is not necessarily a line in practice. In practice, in China, the state bureaucracy ran the economy.

If you deny the above, show us the organs of workers control of the economy from the workplace on up.

so saying "Maoism lead to capitalism" is complete bulls*it.

No it isn't bullshit. (We're adults here; you can spell it out.)

What was the Greap Leap Forward and the Great Cultural Proletarian Revolution if not the big struggles against capitalism and the reactionary Confucianism?

Show us the mass organizations of workers fighting against capitalism during these events.

The Maoists introduced state capitalism into China. Why would anyone be surprised if it morphed itself within a few decades into private capitalism?

And if Maoists are so cool, how is it that the Maoists in Nepal, who were being cheered on this board less than a year ago, are now the leaders of a bourgeois government which is aiding and abetting capitalist development in Nepal?

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

Since this is a general thread on Maoism, I'm posting this link, originally posted by mosfeld on another thread, to show the complete disarray of Maoists in China.

Comrade, take a look at The Post-Mao Chinese Left: Navigating the Recent Debates. Some comrades are clearly tilted towards reformism and working within the CCP, while others are more revolutionary and advocate an overthrow.

As far as I can tell, not one faction of Chinese Maoism is clearly calling for revolutionary overthrow of the capitalist regime it helped to create.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

From another thread:

Did you support the PPW?

I presume that what mosfeld is referring to is the Maoist strategy of "protracted peoples war."

protracted people's war, is a military-political strategy invented by Mao Zedong. The basic concept behind People's War is to maintain the support of the population and draw the enemy deep into the interior where the population will bleed them dry through a mix of Mobile Warfare and Guerrilla warfare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protracted_people%27s_war

If this is the proper concept and the proper definition, the answer is no, nor should any sane revolutionary. And I'll also address this strategy with regard to Nepal

(1) This is a strategy that ignores the working class, the leading class of the socialist revolution. If this was, in fact, the basis for the struggle in Nepal, we have seen its result: the People's Liberation Army was held to a stalemate by the Royal Nepal Army. The Maoists, leading the PLA, agreed to a ceasefire. Years of stagnation have followed. Now, as we post, the Maoists are engaged in the final surrender of the PLA while they smile and lead the new bourgeois government of Nepal.

(2) And meanwhile, the exploitation of the working class and the peasantry of Nepal goes on.

(3) In addition, to attempt such a strategy in a modern industrial country would be suicide. Does anyone seriously believe that such a strategy would be possible in the US, let alone a relatively small country like France or Germany?

(4) The Maoists have understaken such a strategy in India. They have met with certain rural successes but they have, as usual, ignored the working class. Under the "people's protracted war" strategy, they have nothing to offer the working class. After decades of struggle, they exert nominal control over some of the most backward, rural areas of India. Does anyone really believe that this strategy will lead to victory in the rapidly developing, ubanizing India of the 21st Century?

So no, I don't support PPW. Nor should anyone else.

RED DAVE

[Rodrigo]

... No ... Just because you say so does'nt make it true.

Neither what you say, then. -.- What a fallacy.

Anyway, it's not "me" who's saying that, but Marx and Engels in their regard of the governments as class dictatorships. Where's government/"regime", there's a dictatorship and authoritarianism of a certain class against other(s).

[Rodrigo]

Since (a) the economy was "owned" by the state

And who "owns" the State - that is, directs its actions - if not a determined working class politically organized and represented by ideological-political lines inside a party?

(b) surplus value was being extracted from the workers

Surplus value cannot be "extracted" (surplus value is extracted value) without a capitalist structure. Could you explain "A+B" (like Marx did in Das Kapital) that in socialism value is extracted from the work of the people? And how in collectivist workplaces value is extracted? LOL

(c) the workers had no control over that surplus value

With no surplus value there's no control over surplus value. -.-'

the proper term for the Maoist regime in China was state capitalism.

Not the "Maoist" (with quotation marks since there's no singularity in that era, like there's no singularity in any communist country or party), but the later anti-Maoist China.

If the Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap forward ended capitalism, how was it able to come back in China within 15 years or so after the Cultural Revolution, without a civil war?

There's not "after the Cultural Revolution" in the sense "after the conclusion of Cultural Revolution", since it couldn't be concluded so early. The end of this policy was the consequence of revisionism (like your stupid destructive critique) inside the party.

Maoism: The Menshevism of our time.

Anti-Maoists: The revisionist liars of our time.

[RED DAVE]

And here, Comrades, is Maoism in action: a strike ban in Nepal. (Thanx to Ret for the original post.)

[T]oday’s meeting of Central Labour Advisory Committee, held under the chairmanship of [Maoist]Prime Minister Baburam Bhattarai, who is also looking after the Labour and Transport Management Ministry, made a four-point pact to maintain industrial peace. ... The meeting agreed to form a Minimum Wage Board and enforce the ‘industrial peace year’ declaration that envisages banning industrial strike for the next four years.

(emph added)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/news-nepal...24#post2247724

RED DAVE

[syndicat]

And who "owns" the State - that is, directs its actions - if not a determined working class politically organized and represented by ideological-political lines inside a party?

the bureaucratic class directs the state and the economy. this class was made up of the generals, industry managers, elite Gosplan planners, party apparatchiks. they got their positions often thru the komsomol old boy network. there was no worker democracy to control governance, which would have presupposed freedom of workers to organize, form political and union organizations of their choosing, etc.

Surpluses are extracted from the labor of the immediate producers in any type of class society. These surpluses were controlled by the bureaucratic class in Russia.

[Zostrianos]

The Chinese Cultural Revolution was one of the most tragic events in human history; countless ancient artifacts, monuments, texts, and heritage sites destroyed in a fit of collective madness, hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed or maimed....
The way I see it, the Cultural Revolution was a despotic crime against culture, one of many committed throughout history, no different than the Nazi book burnings and cultural destruction in the 1930's, or the Church's destruction of Pagan culture in late antiquity and the Middle Ages.

Maoism is an insult to communism.

[Ravachol]

The Chinese Cultural Revolution was one of the most tragic events in human history; countless ancient artifacts, monuments, texts, and heritage sites destroyed in a fit of collective madness, hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed or maimed....
The way I see it, the Cultural Revolution was a despotic crime against culture, one of many committed throughout history, no different than the Nazi book burnings and cultural destruction in the 1930's, or the Church's destruction of Pagan culture in late antiquity and the Middle Ages.

Maoism is an insult to communism.

I'm not a Maoist, I don't really give a shit about the cultural revolution and I generally appreciate the aesthetic aspects of ancient culture but moaning about some old buildings, vases or other artifacts getting destroyed in the turmoil of social revolution is exemplary of alienation. If we care more about a set of inanimate objects than the process necessary to rid this world of it's chains we're fucked, it's like these liberal-bourgeois media anchors moaning about some vases in the Cairo national museum being looted during the arab spring revolts and calling on the police and army to 'restore order to save national heritage'. This doesn't mean people should just go around smashing shit for the hell of it but it means we shouldn't feel more attached to random inanimate objects and artifacts than to the process of our own liberation. I think this is appropriate here:

But, interjected van Passen, even if you win "You will be sitting on a pile of ruins". Durruti answered "We have always lived in slums and holes in the wall. We will know how to accommodate ourselves for a while. For, you must not forget, we also know how to build. It is we the workers who built these palaces and cities, here in Spain and in America, and everywhere.

"We, the workers, can build others to take their place, and better ones! We are not in the least afraid of ruins.

[scarletghoul]

honestly i cant be fucked to reply to all these comments. If you want to learn about maoism, its best to read the works of mao first hand, as theyre usually pretty clear and concise, rather than relying on some middle class internet trots or whatever who think they know better than those millions of crazy asians who are stupid enough to pick up a gun and defend their communities, instead of sitting back and dying with the collected works of trotsky and tony cliff in their hands, knowing that even though it means nothing to their actual material conditions and probably never will have anything to do with any revolution, they can rest in peace knowing that theyve preserved their ideological purity and that their liberation movement will not be criticised by the glorious enlightened western students who do nothing but try and sell their shitty newspapers that no one wants to read.

lol woops uhh anyway, I recommend reading http://ajadhind.wordpress.com/marxis...-basic-course/ for a good intro to MLM if you have the time. As for Mao's works, "on practice" "on contradiction" "where do correct ideas come from" which can all be found on marxists.org.
red books alright too http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...book/index.htm
and this is also essential reading http://www.marxists.org/reference/ar...9/mswv9_84.htm

[CommunityBeliever]

The Chinese Cultural Revolution was one of the most tragic events in human history; countless ancient artifacts, monuments, texts, and heritage sites destroyed in a fit of collective madness, hundreds of thousands of innocent people killed or maimed....
The way I see it, the Cultural Revolution was a despotic crime against culture, one of many committed throughout history, no different than the Nazi book burnings and cultural destruction in the 1930's, or the Church's destruction of Pagan culture in late antiquity and the Middle Ages.

Those were capitalist and fuedalist elements that were destroyed, and besides, as comrade Ravachol said we generally care more about people then ancient artifacts.

Maoism is an insult to communism.

No it isn't, but this statement is an insult to Maoism.

[Jose Gracchus]

Surplus value cannot be "extracted" (surplus value is extracted value) without a capitalist structure. Could you explain "A+B" (like Marx did in Das Kapital) that in socialism value is extracted from the work of the people? And how in collectivist workplaces value is extracted? LOL

You're a Maoist, so you yourself can answer this question for the USSR in 1970. After all, it was according to the Man himself, "capitalist" as well as "fascist."

Easy to talk shit when you don't defend your own tendency's lines.

[Zostrianos]

Those were capitalist and fuedalist elements that were destroyed, and besides, as comrade Ravachol said we generally care more about people then ancient artifacts.

No it isn't, but this statement is an insult to Maoism.

First, please justify the massive book burnings of classical Chinese literature, and the public humiliation, imprisonment and murder of innocent artists, teachers, and cultural figures, whose only fault was that the Red Guards considered anything remotely cultural as "bourgeois". And we all know what would have happened if they had gone even further: Pol Pot ring a bell?
Additionally, please explain how the destruction of ancient artifacts and cultural treasures is of benefit to the proletariat.

Then come talk to me about the greatness of Maoism.