Onwards Maoist Century!

[ind_com]

Onwards Maoist Century!

When it comes to "maoism" I think a lot of people are unaware that those of us identify as marxist-leninist-maoist are only speaking of a theoretical tradition that crystallized around 1990. To be sure, the term goes back to the 1960s and the Chinese communists' split from Soviet hegemony, but then it was simply short-hand for a dominant current of anti-revisionist communism.

Before 1990, and especially in the 1960s and 1970s, "maoism" simply meant a type of marxism-leninism that identified with the ongoing Chinese Revolution rather than Soviet revisionism. Beyond this, it had no coherent and/or consistent theoretical content. The maoists pre-1990 were generally anti-revisionists, concerned with upholding the revolutionary line of marxism-leninism. The maoist, in this context, was only a maoist insofar as s/he argued that the Chinese Revolution (specifically the Cultural Revolution) was carrying forward world revolution and that Mao Zedong was just the most advanced revolutionary leader. Hence "Mao Zedong Thought".

This understanding of maoism, which never really conceived of itself as maoism (as a moment of continuity-rupture with the chain of marxism-leninism that produced new universalizable theory), could only find itself in crisis when China also chose the path of revisionism. Like those who were certain that the Soviet Union, regardless of Khrushchev, was still the command centre of world revolution, the maoists of yesteryear were shattered by the crisis of China's collapse into state capitalism. Tied to a place, to a particular rather than universal moment, the marxist-leninists labelled "maoist" were, by the mid-1980s, incapable of explaining why their "maoism" was any different from the Soviet revisionism that happened earlier.

The claim that the theoretical developments produced by the Chinese Revolution under Mao Zedong represented a development in universal revolutionary theory, a new stage in revolutionary communism, was only articulated by the Peruvian Communist Party [PCP, known as the Sendero Luminoso] at the end of the 1980s. And, following the early assertions of the PCP, the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement [RIM] would finally declare "Long Live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!" in 1993. This is the moment, moving into the 1990s, that maoism crystallized as an actual theoretical current.




Now what is most interesting about the fact that a "new stage" of revolutionary communist theory was declared around 1990 is that it was declared in the very moment we were told that capitalism was victorious and the end of history. The Berlin wall had fallen; the former Soviet Union was being avidly free-marketized; China was descending further into state capitalism; Cuba had retreated into siege stagnation. But here, in the midst of this historic defeat, a new revolutionary stage is proclaimed! This was not supposed to happen: capitalism was triumphant, the imperialists had won the cold war, and communism was passé––"good in theory but bad in practice" was the banal refrain of the liberals, "terrible totalitarianism" was the chorus of the reactionaries.

We must remember, however, that what would eventually be called leninism was also wrested from the jaws of historic defeat. The SPD in Germany––the supposed leader of the international proletariat at that time––had capitulated to imperialism; the Second International imploded; World War One was unleashed amidst the ruin of communist failure. But then, against all odds (and in Russia of all places!) there was the Bolshevik Revolution. Decades later there was the Chinese Revolution. Smaller revolutions and global anti-imperialism were rampant.

None of this is to say that the historic defeat now isn't much greater than the defeat from which the Bolshevik Revolution emerged; indeed, it is much greater––actually existing socialisms failed, giving capitalism the supposed right to declare itself superior. What I find interesting, though, is that these moments of communism have always emerged when they were not supposed to emerge, when communism was supposedly crushed and capitalism was triumphant.

Go back before the Bolshevik Revolution to the Paris Commune: what would eventually be known as marxism was fully theorized, and emerged as the prime ideology of the international proletariat, only after this historic and tragic defeat. Nearly seventy years later, a longer period of time between now and the last gasp of the Chinese Revolution, the Soviet Union emerges. So is it really that strange that a new stage of revolutionary communist theory crystallizes in 1993 of all times? Only the cynics at the centres of capitalism, or the anti-communist anarchists, would call this emergence anachronistic.

But those who refuse to view history in this manner are often those who will declare, when it comes to maoism, that "the maoist project died in the 1980s." The thing is, the maoist project didn't really exist until 1993 and has been slowly developing, sometimes in great upheavals, since that time. Marxism, after all, did not fail because it did not come to fruition in the time of Marx: it was proved through the Bolshevik Revolution through the operationalization of Lenin––this opened the door to theorization of something that would be called leninism, something that emerged through that world historical moment but was not fully theorized, with ups and downs, until later. And so later, in the early days of the Chinese Revolution, marxism-leninism was operationalized by Mao––another door was opened, another theoretical terrain breached. The Chinese Revolution wasn't maoist anymore than the Russian Revolution was leninist: these were the theoretical crystallizations resulting from judging and assessing what operationalizations succeeded after the fact.

Maoism, then, is just over two decades old, far younger than Marxism was at the time of the Russian Revolution, and already there have been significant attempts to pursue its operationalization: Peru, Nepal, India… There will be more attempts, and the RIM will rear its head again, and the 21st century will not only be a century of great rebellious upheaval––as is every period of crisis––but it will be for anti-capitalists, in many ways and despite banal movementist claims, the maoist century, just as the 20th century, regardless of the tiny counter-currents of anarchism and reformism, the leninist century.

http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.in/201...t-century.html

[Grenzer]

You need to stop spamming this Maoist crap on the board. It's 2012, not 1966.

[Jimmie Higgins]

You need to stop spamming this Maoist crap on the board. It's 2012, not 1966.

Didn't you read the article, Maoism didn't exist in 1966. For some reason it began in the early 1990s... I guess because the author says-so.

[Take The Long Way Home]

We know that this is true,because the author is telling us that its true.

Why do you focus so much on the past revolutionaries? They lived they rebel they made horrible mistakes and they died the end,there is no need to be looking back on those people who gave communism/socialism an bad name. Now i will get flamed here that im an liberal or something,but we should focus on Marx ideology,everything that comes after Marx is unnecessary.

In the end im not saying that all past revolutionaries had only bad ideas there were also good ones,but their mistakes destroy this "good" ideas.

[ind_com]

Both of you, please don't troll.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Yet another thread about maoism.
Oh joy.

[ind_com]

Hoxha never said anything against starting threads about Maoism. Please keep to the holy teachings of your prophet.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Hoxha never said anything against starting threads about Maoism. Please keep to the holy teachings of your prophet.

Maybe because he died before RevLeft got created, or any other internet-forum.
You are the one that brings up Hoxha everytime, I say nothing about Hoxha and you say something about him being my prophet.
Seems like you're not only obsessed over maoism but also over Hoxha.

[ind_com]

Maybe because he died before RevLeft got created, or any other internet-forum.

But he was an omniscient divine being, as we all know.

You are the one that brings up Hoxha everytime, I say nothing about Hoxha and you say something about him being my prophet.

That happens because you troll discussions on Maoism with your one-liners.

Seems like you're not only obsessed over maoism but also over Hoxha.

As I mentioned earlier, we usually leave other tendencies alone as long as they don't make the first move against us. I don't care about Hoxha or Trotsky till you start trolling Maoist threads.

Edit: It will be nice if some mod or admin removes the one-liner troll-posts and my replies to them.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

So how's that revolution coming along in Nepal? Some new trade agreements with China, maybe? Special Economic Zones, why not? Why, why not some inane power struggles in the parties, delicious, is it not? Even if we, for the sake of argument, accept Maoism as something other than the populist petite-bourgeois ideology it is, it doesn't seem to be going very much according to any revolutionary path whatsoever in Nepal. And the ones in India...

[ind_com]

So how's that revolution coming along in Nepal? Some new trade agreements with China, maybe? Special Economic Zones, why not? Why, why not some inane power struggles in the parties, delicious, is it not?

In Nepal Prachanda was waiting for one of your true communist tendencies to lead the revolution, but unfortunately Kiran started building a reactionary communist party and a reactionary people's militia.

Even if we, for the sake of argument, accept Maoism as something other than the populist petite-bourgeois ideology it is, it doesn't seem to be going very much according to any revolutionary path whatsoever in Nepal. And the ones in India...

In India also we are waiting for a true communist tendency to prepare the working class. Otherwise, we idiot Indians will continue to fall by the millions for these Maoist gang-activities against the peaceful ruling classes.

[Ismail]

"Mao Zedong Thought" was spoken of as early as the 50's with admiration by Ho Chi Minh and others, albeit mainly as a military doctrine. After 1960 to adhere to "Mao Zedong Thought" increasingly meant siding with the Chinese view of the USSR and various theoretical issues. By the 70's Maoism became a pretty well-defined ideology which exalted Mao as a man who brought forth a "new stage" in Marxism-Leninism, something Chinese propaganda actively promoted.

Just because the Shining Path decided that they were basically the only group genuinely upholding "Mao Zedong Thought" and thus deciding to formally "found" Maoism doesn't make them right.

[ind_com]

"Mao Zedong Thought" was spoken of as early as the 50's with admiration by Ho Chi Minh and others, albeit mainly as a military doctrine. After 1960 to adhere to "Mao Zedong Thought" increasingly meant siding with the Chinese view of the USSR and various theoretical issues. By the 70's Maoism became a pretty well-defined ideology which exalted Mao as a man who brought forth a "new stage" in Marxism-Leninism.

Just because the Shining Path decided that they were basically the only group genuinely upholding "Mao Zedong Thought" and thus deciding to formally "found" Maoism doesn't make them right.

The Shining Path didn't decide that they were the only group genuinely upholding Mao Tse Tung Thought. They acknowledged the fact that the Chinese path of people's war was applicable to all neo-colonial countries. This generalization led to the term Maoism, as we use it now. It is different from the earlier Lin Biaoist notion of Maoism. There are other features of Maoism too, including siding for the GPCR against Dengist revisionism, which took over only in the late 70s. The author refers to the further consolidation of Maoism in the 90s, which happened due to its global acceptance by communist movements, through the RIM.

[La Comédie Noire]

A set of Doctrines is what happens when social movements stop growing and die. They're an embalmed corpse. So in a way you are right.

[The Douche]

I like MLM Mayhem, and I read it somewhat frequently, but its content is usually not particularly interesting for discussion on here. And if you did want to discuss something from it, why not pick something with more substance than one of his posts about how cool maoism is.

Why not one of the recent ones on movementism or something? Just saying, you're not gonna be very well received when you post an article that says "Maoism rulez!", because people are just gonna respond "nuh-uh", and how can we blame them when there is no substance to the original post?

[Igor]

have you noticed that topic names that end in exclamation marks are never for good topics?

[ind_com]

I like MLM Mayhem, and I read it somewhat frequently, but its content is usually not particularly interesting for discussion on here. And if you did want to discuss something from it, why not pick something with more substance than one of his posts about how cool maoism is.

Why not one of the recent ones on movementism or something? Just saying, you're not gonna be very well received when you post an article that says "Maoism rulez!", because people are just gonna respond "nuh-uh", and how can we blame them when there is no substance to the original post?

You have a point there. I will post some of his more technical works next.

[l'Enfermé]

Oh god why...we've got enough Stalinist revisionists already, must we be condemned to suffer so many Maoist revisionists also?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Oh god why...we've got enough Stalinist revisionists already, must we be condemned to suffer so many Maoist revisionists also?

Yes you must suffer.
Mao died for your sins.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

A set of Doctrines is what happens when social movements stop growing and die. They're an embalmed corpse. So in a way you are right.

The revolutions in Nepal, Peru, the Philippines, and India beg to differ about the "dying" aspect. Assuming you mean Maoism when you say doctrines.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As for the topics on Maoism,if I subscribed to any single one, I would only defend such a tendency in already existing threads; creating topics about tendencies when you subscribe to that tendency is simply asking for a headache.