Modern-day Maoists worry Chinese authorities

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

On Charter 08:

Disagree. I would rather keep the PRC's generally socialist constitution with only minor amendments, like guaranteeing LGBT rights.

It would probably be better if it was re-written. Like the Soviet constitution and many others, that sort of documents aren't very important, and the focus from Charter 08 on it indicates that the authors take influence form the constitution-centred philosophy of U.S. politics.

These are all positive things which every genuine democratic socialist should support.

They are not. Separation of powers is directly undesirable, and an independent judiciary is as well: a judiciary should be political. The problem in the PRC is not that the judiciary is political, it's who controls the state and thus the legal system; i.e. it is not the working class.

Abolishing internal passports (if this is what it means by abolishing the Hukou system, it seems to be a term that applies to other aspects such as citizen registration also) is a good thing, however, guarantee of human rights is not. The bourgeoisie has no human rights. Arbitrarily asserting such is pointless.

I'll give you so much that the rest could be thought of as positive depending on your views.

Completely opposed to this.

I'd hope so. Point 14 is such that, even if every other single point was good, it ought to be rejected wholesomely (preferably in favour of a socialist alternative to this liberal-capitalist rubbish, I mean it's just a pointless petition anyway).

Again, generally positive things.

This time I do agree, but they do not go far enough.

Maybe. The USSR under Lenin was a federated republic. This could give non-Han ethnic minorities in China more rights.

All ethnic borders must be blurred and a spirit of coöperation would be more preferable to counter reprehensible ethnic discrimination, as well as the building of a new unified culture, rather than fomenting divisions along ethnic lines.

Not sure what this means...

It means rejecting "communism", that's what it means. It means going on about enormous death tolls and asserting they are the fault of communism and building monuments all around to the memory of the "crimes of communism". They'd say it'd only reflect excesses by the state during Mao, but we all know they like to take it one-step further and few people will be making that distinction. It is essentially about creating a bunch of symbols and references that will forever be regarded as the enormous dreadful tombstones of socialism - regardless of what socialism this might be - and will be used to strengthen the already strong support for capitalism in public opinion. Whenever there comes a red and say that things are wrong now, the ruling class will point in the direction of that barren steel monument and say, "That is what happened last we tried, that is where socialism gets us!" - even referring to Capitalist China of today - and thus the score will be settled. That is what Truth in reconciliation means.

[Queercommie Girl]

It would probably be better if it was re-written. Like the Soviet constitution and many others, that sort of documents aren't very important, and the focus from Charter 08 on it indicates that the authors take influence form the constitution-centred philosophy of U.S. politics.

But the basic framework does not need to be re-written. China today still has a Soviet-style constitution. The first article reads "the alliance of the working class and the peasantry is the leading class". Why fix an unbroken wheel?

And I disagree with you that a constitution is not important. "Constitution-centrism" isn't just American, the USSR also saw it as a very important thing.

They are not. Separation of powers is directly undesirable, and an independent judiciary is as well: a judiciary should be political. The problem in the PRC is not that the judiciary is political, it's who controls the state and thus the legal system; i.e. it is not the working class.

The judiciary should indeed be political, but also independent. A judiciary that is not independent, even if it is fully under the democratic control of the working class, is still prone to corruption.

Abolishing internal passports (if this is what it means by abolishing the Hukou system, it seems to be a term that applies to other aspects such as citizen registration also) is a good thing,

The hukou system essentially separates China's population into 2 castes: urban and rural. It's directly discriminatory in many ways.

however, guarantee of human rights is not. The bourgeoisie has no human rights. Arbitrarily asserting such is pointless.

I agree that human rights need to be asserted with a class orientation, but this doesn't mean human rights aren't important for socialists. Also, to state that "the bourgeoisie has no human rights" isn't actually correct. Capitalists are still human, and the only area where their rights will be taken away is in relation to their ownership of the means of production. It doesn't mean capitalists aren't given basic human rights in other areas.

All ethnic borders must be blurred and a spirit of coöperation would be more preferable to counter reprehensible ethnic discrimination, as well as the building of a new unified culture, rather than fomenting divisions along ethnic lines.

National consciousness can never be forcefully taken away. I prefer Lenin's original multi-national socialist federation idea.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

But the basic framework does not need to be re-written. China today still has a Soviet-style constitution. The first article reads "the alliance of the working class and the peasantry is the leading class". Why fix an unbroken wheel?

The alliance of the peasantry and working class was a mistake when done in the Soviet Union and a mistake that ought not to have been repeated.

And I disagree with you that a constitution is not important. "Constitution-centrism" isn't just American, the USSR also saw it as a very important thing.

The constitution of the Soviet Union had a different function than it does in the United States and was rewritten entirely several times (lastly in 1977) and formed a basic frame of political goals and so on so forth in addition to laying out some basic organisation.

The judiciary should indeed be political, but also independent. A judiciary that is not independent, even if it is fully under the democratic control of the working class, is still prone to corruption.

An independent judiciary is not necessarily any less prone to corruption.

I agree that human rights need to be asserted with a class orientation, but this doesn't mean human rights aren't important for socialists. Also, to state that "the bourgeoisie has no human rights" isn't actually correct. Capitalists are still human, and the only area where their rights will be taken away is in relation to their ownership of the means of production. It doesn't mean capitalists aren't given basic human rights in other areas.

In general they might have, but the moment they organise counter-revolutionary opposition, they surrender all rights.

National consciousness can never be forcefully taken away. I prefer Lenin's original multi-national socialist federation idea.

It can, and should, be taken away. I have no idealist perceptions of this being easy. It will probably take a very long time. But despite the difficulties, the formulation of a new global single-unity culture, the final brotherhood between all humanity, is no less desirable therefore.

[Queercommie Girl]

The alliance of the peasantry and working class was a mistake when done in the Soviet Union and a mistake that ought not to have been repeated.

The October Revolution in 1917 was based on Lenin's slogan of the alliance between workers and peasants (hence the "hammer and sickle" being the communist symbol) and that was a success. Bureaucratic degeneration didn't happen until later.

An independent judiciary is not necessarily any less prone to corruption.

There is no absolute guarantee anywhere, but generally speaking a judiciary that is both independent and under democratic mass control is less prone to corruption than a judiciary that is only independent but not democratic, or only democratic but not independent, or worse a judiciary that is neither independent nor democratic.

In general they might have, but the moment they organise counter-revolutionary opposition, they surrender all rights.

But the same applies to everyone. If a working class person organises counter-revolutionary opposition, he/she would be persecuted just the same. This is because "counter-revolutionary activities" is against socialist law.

It can, and should, be taken away. I have no idealist perceptions of this being easy. It will probably take a very long time. But despite the difficulties, the formulation of a new global single-unity culture, the final brotherhood between all humanity, is no less desirable therefore.

It cannot be "taken away" at all. The formation of a single "Earth consciousness" is something that will naturally evolve in a global socialist society over a long period of time. But in a democratic socialist society the national consciousness of workers is not something that can simply be removed or even dampened down through administrative or bureaucratic means. Lenin understood this which is why he strongly supported national rights, even allowing Finland to break away from the Soviet Union.

Also, it's sexist for you to only mention the "final brotherhood between all humanity" but not "sisterhood".

[Seth]

Maoists should worry the workers, too.

[mosfeld]

Maoists in China, like the Maoist Communist Party of China, might be at odds with the general line of MLM at some points but young Parties often state weird shit which they correct later. No Party or individual is perfect from its inception.

Are they "Maoists" ideologically? Or are they more like patriots who want to go back to some aspects of Mao, like the crime-fighting party boss of Chongqing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bo_Xilai)?

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.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

It can, and should, be taken away. I have no idealist perceptions of this being easy. It will probably take a very long time. But despite the difficulties, the formulation of a new global single-unity culture, the final brotherhood between all humanity, is no less desirable therefore.

This got my attention in particular. It seems quite troublesome for a variety of reasons, not least of which the fact that any such "universal" culture will need to give preference to certain traditions over others. Why teach Mandarin as the central language of the unified culture and not Tibetan or Mongol? Because they are a demographic minority? What if Muslims want the weekend to start on Friday and Christians demand that it covers Sunday?

A far more realistic world would allow for cultural plurality within a broader context of universal brotherhood/sisterhood, and this would be something which is far more acceptable to the individuals within ethnic groups whose traditions are more distinct and regional. There is no reason to think that cultural unanimity needs to be imposed by demolishing cultural diversity and localization.

All ethnic borders must be blurred and a spirit of coöperation would be more preferable to counter reprehensible ethnic discrimination, as well as the building of a new unified culture, rather than fomenting divisions along ethnic lines.

Ethnic borders should be blurred but one should not ignore the institutional problems which exist along that road. Realistically speaking it would be a long-term process and would have to come from the bottom up not the top down. In China in particular you have a problem where some 90% of the people have a single hegemonic culture and receive economic and social preference, which is why the ethnic minorities in China are so concerned. In their case this "blurring" is not a bottom-up process but is largely occurring without their volition. Until the nature of the society is more equal and ethnic minorities aren't at a social disadvantage, it is a reasonable demand to ask for some institutional protection for these communities. You cannot impose a color-blind society by force.

[Queercommie Girl]

Why teach Mandarin as the central language of the unified culture and not Tibetan or Mongol?

A better question would be "why teach English as the global language and not Mandarin or Spanish or Arabic"?

As an internationalist, I have a global perspective, and certainly not just a Chinese one. If the whole world becomes socialist today under a "global mono-culture", the English language and Anglo-American culture will become the dominant force, not Chinese. (E.g. the United Federation of Planets in Star Trek, which is a kind of utopian socialism, uses English as the official language) Obviously I don't want to see that happening, so I'm a supporter of cultural pluralism in the entire world.

[Tenka]

A better question would be "why teach English as the global language and not Mandarin or Spanish or Arabic"?

A "world mono-culture" would necessarily be a multi-lingual one. You can't just enforce a global language -- it's impossible, and no materialist has such aspirations.

And earlier you said:

It cannot be "taken away" at all. The formation of a single "Earth consciousness" is something that will naturally evolve in a global socialist society over a long period of time. But in a democratic socialist society the national consciousness of workers is not something that can simply be removed or even dampened down through administrative or bureaucratic means.

But no one is suggesting 'removing' it through 'administrative' or 'bureaucratic' means. It won't be be long, once a true spirit of internationalism is felt by all, till these separatist "national consciousnesses" wither away on their own. But then, I've lived in the U.S. almost all of my life and have never had anything like a "national conscious" (which is something that sounds nationalistic to me).
Also, Lenin can be wrong.

Also, it's sexist for you to only mention the "final brotherhood between all humanity" but not "sisterhood".

I don't think it's sexist to refer to the brotherhood of humanity. I think it's more so to refer to both a brotherhood and a sisterhood, as though they are distinct things -- as though the sexes have interests which do not coincide.
Maybe it would be better if we just referred to the sisterhood of humanity and left terms like "brother", which have come to be associated with the distinct, false, 'male' species, to rot in the rubbish bin of history. I don't know how well that would be received in general, but I am not opposed to it, and it's better than making superficial distinctions which seem like feel-good liberal concessions to those who are conscious of patriarchal society.

edit: I'm going off-topic though, and probably not making a whole lot of sense.

[Queercommie Girl]

But then, I've lived in the U.S. almost all of my life and have never had anything like a "national conscious" (which is something that sounds nationalistic to me).

The US however is dominated by the English language...

This is precisely my point. I don't want to see a socialist world becomes a global socialist version of the United States of America.

Also, Lenin can be wrong.

And so can you. I'd rather put my money on Lenin.

I don't think it's sexist to refer to the brotherhood of humanity. I think it's more so to refer to both a brotherhood and a sisterhood, as though they are distinct things -- as though the sexes have interests which do not coincide.

Maybe it would be better if we just referred to the sisterhood of humanity and left terms like "brother", which have come to be associated with the distinct, false, 'male' species, to rot in the rubbish bin of history. I don't know how well that would be received in general, but I am not opposed to it, and it's better than making superficial distinctions which seem like feel-good liberal concessions to those who are conscious of patriarchal society.

Yes I think it's better to talk about a "sisterhood".

But really, what's wrong with simply writing "brotherhood/sisterhood"? You might think "token reminders" don't mean anything, but this isn't completely true. Language matters. Often even "liberal concessions" are better than "no concession at all".

Seriously, as much as I criticise the liberals, I really hate those Marxists who think liberals are even worse than conservatives.

[Tenka]

Seriously, as much as I criticise the liberals, I really hate those Marxists who think liberals are even worse than conservatives.

I'm not one of those particular sort of "Marxists" to which you refer; my last point of contention was that referring to a "brotherhood of humanity" is not in fact sexist, and that brotherhood/sisterhood is only a superficial improvement, if one at all, i.e., nowhere near good enough. I'd have preferred something like "comradery of humanity" myself, but that might look a little gaudy, and anyway, I'm not sure if it's grammatically correct.