A quick question for Maoists

[Aussie Trotskyist]

Hey, again, I'm asking a Tendancy question.

Do you feel that the PRC is still socialist, or do you view it as being capitalist?

Personally, I believe its capitalist, but I'm just surveying Maoists to understand their opinion on the matter.

EDIT: Shit, I forgot to add the poll. That may effect my results.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Most Maoists, especially on RevLeft, will tell you that the PRC after Mao stopped being socialist with the rise of Deng Xioping and his revisionist policies which restored capitalist economic and social structures (the elimination of the peoples communes, restoration of capitalist education methods, managers being reinstated in the factories, etc). Some comrades defend the PRC as socialist today but generally speaking such people subscribe to tendencies other than Maoism (a tendency which has much more emphasis on the "ism" than the Mao part; Maoism is school of ideological thought and is highly critical of Mao).

[Zealot]

Most Maoists reject the PRC as being socialist to my knowledge but here is a pro-China article if you're interested in some of the arguments used.

E: It's important to remember that there is a difference between a country being Marxist and a country having a socialist mode of production. It is entirely consistent for a country to have a non-socialist mode of production and still adhere to Marxist thought. I think Tim Cornelis once started a thread about this. So the question may not be exactly "does China have Socialism?" but "does China have a DoTP or a party that still rigorously follows scientific Marxism?".

[TheGodlessUtopian]

A country, however, cannot "be" Marxist since Marxism is simply a manner of analyzing things.

[Zealot]

A country, however, cannot "be" Marxist since Marxism is simply a manner of analyzing things.

True, I should have worded it better but you get the point.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Generally I don't think you'll find many Maoists that are fond of Deng. It's important to note that the whole rationale behind the cultural revolution was the fact that the Deng faction tried to pull this crap in the 60's and Mao thought the best way to deal with it was to foster greater public involvement in the body politic and create institutions of direct democracy (which were admittedly flawed). Since many don't know much about the cultural revolution I'd recommend reading this paper which recently approved by the China Study Group (unfortunately I am unable to post links, can some one else provide some good information)
Deng knew that he couldn't pass his reforms in an atmosphere of democracy, so he ended the cultural revolutions and abolished the "four freedoms" that allowed the Chinese Labor movement it's autonomy from the central government. Now a days you can hear alot of Mao bashing from the CPC only because Mao tried to prevent Deng from achieving political power. So just because the PRC might give Mao lip service doesn't mean that they are in any way "maoist"

[hetz]

A country, however, cannot "be" Marxist since Marxism is simply a manner of analyzing things.

Even more importantly, it's a guide to action.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I will add my two cents -- although I am not a Maoist. Since Maoism is a variant of Stalinism, a nationalistic perversion of Leninism, Maoists have typically tended to take a binary view of the PRC. If they agree with the given leadership at the moment, it is socialist. If not, it is capitalist. The class nature of the Chinese state has not fundamentally changed since 1949 when capitalism was overthrown (although it did take a while for Mao and Co. to get this).

The Trotskyist view, as I see it, is that China is a deformed worker's state. Capitalism has been overthrown, but political power is in the hands of the bureaucracy that impedes the development of the Chinese worker's state and the world revolution. So we defend China against imperialist attack, but give no political support to the bureaucracy. Even with all the pro-market reforms and the increased penetration of international capital in China, there is still a planned economy, with large industry and banks and transportation largely state owned. As in the last years of the USSR, the danger of counterrevolution grows as the bureaucrats continue their pro-capital policies. I think a good comparison is between India and China. Both countries were in similar circumstances after WWII. The Chinese have been far better off in so many ways because of the revolution.

As for the Cultural Revolution? It was a faction fight in the CCP. Mao was on the outs because of a number of failed policies, including The Great Leap Forward. He used his base in the PLA and the enthusiasm of Chinese youth to push out Deng and Liu. It was a very destructive period -- imbued with the worst kind of moralism and idealism. And democratic it absolutely was not.

[ind_com]

Good advertisement for Trotskyism there.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Good advertisement for Trotskyism there.

Don't stoop to his level.Offer a quick rebuttal and explanation of why Trotskyists think they way they do (while defending MLM of course) and leave it at that.No need to exacerbate things without saying a great sum.

[hetz]

The Trotskyist view, as I see it, is that China is a deformed worker's state. Capitalism has been overthrown, but political power is in the hands of the bureaucracy that impedes the development of the Chinese worker's state and the world revolution. So we defend China against imperialist attack, but give no political support to the bureaucracy. Even with all the pro-market reforms and the increased penetration of international capital in China, there is still a planned economy, with large industry and banks and transportation largely state owned. As in the last years of the USSR, the danger of counterrevolution grows as the bureaucrats continue their pro-capital policies.

That's just recycling old formulas without any thought and without considering the new developments that had taken place in China since the 50s, 60s or whatever.
If according to you today's China and 50's GDR were all basically "deformed worker's states", then you have to rethink your positions, because they don't explain many things.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Maoism is a variant of Stalinism, a nationalistic perversion of Leninism

Stalinism, if there is a such thing, proposes that the party is the sole leader of society and that all social debate should take place in the party, and that the correctness of the party line is to be maintained by purges. Maoists on the other hand see the party as another battle ground for class struggle, capable of either leading the revolution or being overtaken by reactionaries. Because of the possible flaws of the party, Maoists believe that the party line should not come entirely from the party itself but instead should be taken from the proletariat who are the only force capable of waging class struggle in both socialist and capitalist societies (See mass line, Maoist views on base and superstructure, Maoist views on class struggle under socialism). This is why the working class under the advice of Mao (though not necessarily led by since in many cases the red guard directly defied his orders) waged the cultural revolution to continue this class struggle. Orthodox Stalinists on the other hand would never have engaged the masses in such a way because they believe that only the party made pure from time and space can form a perfect line. This faulty belief led to revisionists merely waiting until Stalin died to take over the party with no one being able to stop them. Maoists don't uphold Stalin because they think his line was perfect, they merely uphold him because he was the only thing standing in the way of revisionism.

Maoists have typically tended to take a binary view of the PRC. If they agree with the given leadership at the moment, it is socialist. If not, it is capitalist. The class nature of the Chinese state has not fundamentally changed since 1949 when capitalism was overthrown (although it did take a while for Mao and Co. to get this).

Socialism, as defined by marx, is the transitional period between capitalism and communism. If a state is heading to communism then it is socialist, if not then it is capitalist. This isn't anything peticular to Mao, this is basic Marx

The Trotskyist view, as I see it, is that China is a deformed worker's state. Capitalism has been overthrown, but political power is in the hands of the bureaucracy that impedes the development of the Chinese worker's state and the world revolution. So we defend China against imperialist attack, but give no political support to the bureaucracy. Even with all the pro-market reforms and the increased penetration of international capital in China, there is still a planned economy, with large industry and banks and transportation largely state owned. As in the last years of the USSR, the danger of counterrevolution grows as the bureaucrats continue their pro-capital policies. I think a good comparison is between India and China. Both countries were in similar circumstances after WWII. The Chinese have been far better off in so many ways because of the revolution.

Personally I agree with Trotsky on this account so I won't argue with you here.

As for the Cultural Revolution? It was a faction fight in the CCP. Mao was on the outs because of a number of failed policies, including The Great Leap Forward. He used his base in the PLA and the enthusiasm of Chinese youth to push out Deng and Liu. It was a very destructive period -- imbued with the worst kind of moralism and idealism. And democratic it absolutely was not.

Unfortunately I can't link yet, but can someone link the MLM study group paper on the cultural revolution here to give a less trot-tinted view of the cultural revolution?

[Let's Get Free]

Socialism, as defined by marx, is the transitional period between capitalism and communism. If a state is heading to communism then it is socialist, if not then it is capitalist. This isn't anything peticular to Mao, this is basic Marx

No, Marx never made a distinction between socialism and communism, with socialism being the "lower stage" of communism. He used the words more or less interchangeably.

[ind_com]

The Trotskyist view, as I see it, is that China is a deformed worker's state. Capitalism has been overthrown, but political power is in the hands of the bureaucracy that impedes the development of the Chinese worker's state and the world revolution.

Do you hold that China actively follows imperialist policies?

So we defend China against imperialist attack, but give no political support to the bureaucracy.

Any country should be defended from imperialist attack, regardless of whether it is socialist or communist.

Even with all the pro-market reforms and the increased penetration of international capital in China, there is still a planned economy, with large industry and banks and transportation largely state owned. As in the last years of the USSR, the danger of counterrevolution grows as the bureaucrats continue their pro-capital policies. I think a good comparison is between India and China. Both countries were in similar circumstances after WWII. The Chinese have been far better off in so many ways because of the revolution.

So, what is your solution for China? Is it just another political revolution replacing 'bad' people with 'good' ones? Maoists advocate a full-fledged socialist revolution in China.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

No, Marx never made a distinction between socialism and communism, with socialism being the "lower stage" of communism. He used the words more or less interchangeably.

Yes, socialism is the lower stage of communism, where the proletariat wrestles control of the state away from the bourgeois and use it to suppress them until the state can be abolished and communism can be established without the fear of external intervention. When state power is usurped from the proletariat and given to a few party bureaucrats, then no matter how violent those bureaucrats are they can't be said to be leading the way to communism since their violence is to preserve their order, not to establish a new one.

[Let's Get Free]

Yes, socialism is the lower stage of communism, where the proletariat wrestles control of the state away from the bourgeois and use it to suppress them until the state can be abolished and communism can be established without the fear of external intervention. When state power is usurped from the proletariat and given to a few party bureaucrats, then no matter how violent those bureaucrats are they can't be said to be leading the way to communism since their violence is to preserve their order, not to establish a new one.

That was a distinction made by Lenin, not by Marx.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

That was a distinction made by Lenin, not by Marx.

Nope

"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing, but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." — Critique of the Gotha Program

Yes Lenin paid greater attention to this concept, however the fundamental foundations of a transitional state period were laid by Marx and Engels.

Ed: I think it is fair to say that the dictatorship of the proletariat and Socialism are synonymous. While Lenin may have theorized the socialist state differently than Marx, it is sufficient to assume that Marx wasn't imagining that the dictatorship would be capitalist

[Let's Get Free]

Ed: I think it is fair to say that the dictatorship of the proletariat and Socialism are synonymous. While Lenin may have theorized the socialist state differently than Marx, it is sufficient to assume that Marx wasn't imagining that the dictatorship would be capitalist

No, Marx never identified the "dictatorship of the proletariat" with socialism.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

No, Marx never identified the "dictatorship of the proletariat" with socialism.

Admittedly arguing over semantics is silly so I apologize. Though still, whether it was socialism or not Marx clearly did have a conception of a transitional stage, and if this the state was not transitioning, then how could we define it as a communist state?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Unfortunately I can't link yet, but can someone link the MLM study group paper on the cultural revolution here to give a less trot-tinted view of the cultural revolution?

Link: http://kasamaproject.org/2009/01/08/...or-the-future/