Maoism

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Does anyone have a clear explanation about what Maoism is.
How is it different from Marxism/Leninism?
What were it's pros and cons?
Also is it still relevant?
And are there any books I should read?

[Egalitarianism]

And are there any books I should read?

I'll allow other's who are more learned to answer the other questions but as far as Maoist literature is concerned I recommend "Quotations for Chairman Mao Tse -Tung" known in the West as "The Little Red Book"

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

I'll allow other's who are more learned to answer the other questions but as far as Maoist literature is concerned I recommend "Quotations for Chairman Mao Tse -Tung" known in the West as "The Little Red Book"

Yeah I read some parts of it, But I don't really understand everything.

[NewLeft]

Does anyone have a clear explanation about what Maoism is.
How is it different from Marxism/Leninism?
What were it's pros and cons?
Also is it still relevant?
And are there any books I should read?

It is different by including nationalist elements, promoting agrarian life and being more specific to China. Pros: It's revolutionary and still alive in parts of Asia?? Cons: It hasn't been very successful..

[Ballyfornia]

Its stupid, It has all this revolutionary rhetoric but has the theory of new democracy and block of four classed which is counter revolutionary. State capitalism, which doesn't really need much explanation why that's bad. Although i must say Maoist art is pretty cool

[daft punk]

Mao's aim was for China to be capitalist for several decades after WW2 in accordance with Stalinist two stage theory and a variety of Popular Frontism (this aspect of Stalinism was completely discredited in China for obvious reasons). Even so, Stalin backed the other side. Mao's plan failed partly cos of the Korean war, partly cos it was a rubbish idea in the first place. But socialism was never on the cards so China became modelled on the USSR in the end. A dictatorship by a bureaucracy over a planned economy. A deformed workers state.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Even back in the days of Chairman Mao his followers rejected a notion of Maoism in favor of Mao Zedong thought. Since Mao's death it is apparent that while Mao's thought may be alive in China as a matter of form, as a matter of substance it has been eclipsed. Frankly, given the disastrous chaos and confusion surrounding the Cultural Revolution I don't believe Mao's thought ever constituted a coherent approach to revolutionary praxis.

[Homo Songun]

OP, to sum up so far:

"It is good if we are attacked by the enemy, since it proves that we have drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves. It is still better if the enemy attacks us wildly and paints us as utterly black and without a single virtue; it demonstrates that we have not only drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves but achieved a great deal in our work."

Mao Zedong, To Be Attacked by the Enemy Is Not a Bad Thing but a Good Thing (May 26, 1939)

[Lei Feng]

Maoism is the expansion of Marxism-Leninism to fit the needs of China(and other "backward" countries).

It is virtually the same as Marxism-Leninism and there aren't many huge differences(us Maoists mostly refer to each other as M-L's regardless) since it is merely adding on to M-L theory and practice.

However, some differences would include New Democracy(which, yes, is often perceived as "counter-revolutionary", but keep in mind, the party was still in control during this phase and China evetunally moved to the socialist phase. This was done because China had not reached the full capitalist phase of development as many countries had, so this phase was designed to get China to Socialism without letting the Bourgeoisie take power and then have to overthrow them as well), focus on guerilla fighting using the Peasantry as a major force, aka the Peoples War(keep in mind, China didnt have a very developed working class/proletariat at the time), Cultural Revolution, and the Mass Line. Those are just some i can think of off the top of my head.

However, despite these differences, that isnt to say that Maoism differed that much from regular Marxism-Leninism.

For your other question:
Pros:
Led China to become a healthy Socialist Society(until Deng Xiaoping came along)
Follows an anti-revisionist line against Khruschev
Has inspired several other revolutions
Is known for fighting Beauracracy
The Proletariat/Peasants are made the leaders of society and could overthrow corrupt party officials(in the case of Deng Xiaoping among other revisionists during the Cultural Revoluion)
It puts a lot more power in the hands of the people and is less "mechanical"(to paraphrase Mao) than traditional M-Lism, which relied mainly on purges to get rid of corrupt officials.

Cons:
Is looked at as "Revisionist" by Hoxha supporters despite China and Albania being allies after the Sino-Soviet split
Utilizes nationalism(anti-imperialist nationalism, mind you, but still nationalism)

Yes, it is still relevant, as it has inspired rebellions in Nepal, India, the Philippines, Peru, and parts of Africa. Workers in China are protesting to this day about how their government has been hijacked by the capitalists and many still view Mao and his leadership in high regard.(Hell, there's even one village left over from the Mao era that still retains socialism to a decent extent, within China). So yes, it is relevant. Mao taught us a lot about how to wage revolution and how to continue it after Socialism has been achieved.

And as for reading, the Marxist internet archive has TONS of works by Chairman Mao. Other than that, i suggest the Xiao Hong shu(Little Red Book).

[The Douche]

Its stupid, It has all this revolutionary rhetoric but has the theory of new democracy and block of four classed which is counter revolutionary. State capitalism, which doesn't really need much explanation why that's bad. Although i must say Maoist art is pretty cool

If you had left out the flame bait ("its stupid") this would've been a decent post, in the future, please keep that in mind.

[Ballyfornia]

OP, to sum up so far:

"It is good if we are attacked by the enemy, since it proves that we have drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves. It is still better if the enemy attacks us wildly and paints us as utterly black and without a single virtue; it demonstrates that we have not only drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves but achieved a great deal in our work."

Mao Zedong, To Be Attacked by the Enemy Is Not a Bad Thing but a Good Thing (May 26, 1939)

So instead of responding or trying to refute criticism you're going to show this quote and that makes it all better? and some how makes you better because you don't reply? What?

[Homo Songun]

[QUOTE=Lei Feng]
Maoism is the expansion of Marxism-Leninism to fit the needs of China(and other "backward" countries).
[quote]

I don't think this is quite right. It is true that he developed the strategy of Peoples War and other things that are, strictly speaking, apropos of backward countries. But the main theoretical contributions of Maoism as such were ideas like the bourgeoisie being reborn within the party itself, and so are applicable to any and all countries.

However, some differences would include New Democracy(which, yes, is often perceived as "counter-revolutionary", but keep in mind, the party was still in control during this phase and China evetunally moved to the socialist phase. This was done because China had not reached the full capitalist phase of development as many countries had, so this phase was designed to get China to Socialism without letting the Bourgeoisie take power and then have to overthrow them as well),

I also think this is not quite right. New Democracy is not so much about carrying the bourgeoisie's water for them as it is completing the tasks of a typical bourgeois revolution long after the bourgeoisie has ceased to be capable of doing such a thing. Arguably this is analogous to the Trotskyist conception of "uneven and combined development" and the tasks that flow from it from the point of view of a communist party.

And as for reading, the Marxist internet archive has TONS of works by Chairman Mao. Other than that, i suggest the Xiao Hong shu(Little Red Book).

To this I would add the website massline.info

[Ismail]

Enver Hoxha's book Imperialism and the Revolution has a chapter all about Maoism and its anti-Marxist basis. It can be viewed here: http://enver-hoxha.net/librat_pdf/en.../part2/III.pdf

Maoism is becoming increasingly irrelevant. After the "Three Worlds Theory" propagated by Mao and Nixon's visit to Beijing it became increasingly difficult to justify a defense of him and his ideology. Outside of unpopular groups like the Shining Path, and aside from the Nepali Maoists who today are obedient wards of the state, there's not many Maoists roaming about anymore.

[Prometeo liberado]

Enver Hoxha's book Imperialism and the Revolution has a chapter all about Maoism and its anti-Marxist basis. It can be viewed here: http://enver-hoxha.net/librat_pdf/en.../part2/III.pdf

Maoism is becoming increasingly irrelevant. After the "Three Worlds Theory" propagated by Mao and Nixon's visit to Beijing it became increasingly difficult to justify a defense of him and his ideology. Outside of unpopular groups like the Shining Path, and aside from the Nepali Maoists who today are obedient wards of the state, there's not many Maoists roaming about anymore.

Bob Avakian will never go away(sadly).

[Homo Songun]

If China's situation is the logical outcome of Mao Zedong's thought, as Enver Hoxha would surely assert, then your statement that Maoism is irrelevant is fallacious on its face. After all, there are 80 million members in the Chinese party as of 2010.

Personally, my criteria for Maoist parties is more selective, but even then, your statement strikes me as somewhat disassociated from reality ... this coming from someone who has no problem giving PCMLE and PCOT mad props

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Enver Hoxha's book Imperialism and the Revolution has a chapter all about Maoism and its anti-Marxist basis. It can be viewed here: http://enver-hoxha.net/librat_pdf/en.../part2/III.pdf

Maoism is becoming increasingly irrelevant. After the "Three Worlds Theory" propagated by Mao and Nixon's visit to Beijing it became increasingly difficult to justify a defense of him and his ideology. Outside of unpopular groups like the Shining Path, and aside from the Nepali Maoists who today are obedient wards of the state, there's not many Maoists roaming about anymore.

Kind of on this subject, what's with India's Maoists? It seems that the Intelligentsia is committed to the ideology but that the rank and file guerrillas and their supporters are just peasants whose land is under attack from the Indian state and would be putting up resistance with or without the party organizing them. How do they plan on keeping the movement together to take state power after the peasants have successfully defended their land, assuming that ever happens?

[CommunityBeliever]

Maoism is the expansion of Marxism-Leninism to fit the needs of China(and other "backward" countries).

I agree with the point raised by comrade Schmuel Katz. The most important features of Maoism are an understanding of how the bourgeoisie can arise in the party and the practice of cultural revolution.

Maoism is becoming increasingly irrelevant. After the "Three Worlds Theory" propagated by Mao and Nixon's visit to Beijing it became increasingly difficult to justify a defense of him and his ideology. Outside of unpopular groups like the Shining Path, and aside from the Nepali Maoists who today are obedient wards of the state, there's not many Maoists roaming about anymore.

Hoxhaism is becoming increasingly irrelevant. After the restoration of capitalism during the reign of Hoxha's chosen successor Ramiz Alia, Hoxhaism is becoming increasingly hard to defend. Hoxhaists are nowhere to be seen these days.

Outside of unpopular groups like the Shining Path, and aside from the Nepali Maoists who today are obedient wards of the state, there's not many Maoists roaming about anymore.

That is BS. There are plenty of Maoists "roaming about" especially in the far east. In fact, most revolutionary socialists today are Maoists.

Well there are anti-Maoists in Nepal that are obedient wards of the state, there are still plenty of actual Maoists in Nepal. Furthermore, in the most populous countries of the world: India and China, Maoism is the main revolutionary force. The Indian Maoists are actively fighting a civil war against the state and of course in China there are many millions of Maoists.

[Ismail]

If China's situation is the logical outcome of Mao Zedong's thought, as Enver Hoxha would surely assert, then your statement that Maoism is irrelevant is fallacious on its face. After all, there are 80 million members in the Chinese party as of 2010.

Well yes, China is quite a populous country. The modern-day CCP also isn't Maoist, it's more or less openly capitalist and has cared very little for Mao since 1978.

this coming from someone who has no problem giving PCMLE and PCOT mad props

Well I don't think the PCMLE massacred peasants while extolling them as the sole force of the revolution and building up their leadership as glorious figures à la "Chairman Gonzalo."

Well there are anti-Maoists in Nepal that are obedient wards of the state, there are still plenty of actual Maoists in Nepal. Furthermore, in the most populous countries of the world: India and China, Maoism is the main revolutionary force. The Indian Maoists are actively fighting a civil war against the state and of course in China there are many millions of Maoists.

The "actual Maoists in Nepal" seem content to vacillate between all the various factions. Of course Hoxha noted that it is the norm for Maoists to vacillate on all sorts of questions. The "many millions of Maoists" in China are not much different from the various nostalgists for Soviet times. In India there is indeed a peasant movement that does seem to enjoy limited popularity, but they've faced the same situation as various other peasant-led rebellions: they've been fighting for decades with little in the way of gains. Not much different from, say, FARC-EP.

"Maoism as an anti-Marxist 'theory' is in agony. It will face the same fate as other theories which have been devised by global capitalism and imperialism in decay."
(Enver Hoxha. Letra të zgjedhura Vol. 1. Tiranë: 8 Nëntori. 1985. p. 401.)

[Grenzer]

If China's situation is the logical outcome of Mao Zedong's thought, as Enver Hoxha would surely assert, then your statement that Maoism is irrelevant is fallacious on its face. After all, there are 80 million members in the Chinese party as of 2010.

I'm not even a fan of Hoxha, and this statement makes no sense at all.

How does the fact that 80,000,000 are a member of an openly capitalist party somehow refute the idea that Maoism is anti marxist?

Maoism allows ideological plurality(IE capitalists and reformists) to be part of its ranks, so the statement that capitalism is the logical conclusion of Maoism seems to be pretty valid to me.

[Ostrinski]

What were it's pros

Aesthetic
Neat quotes

and cons?

Everything else