A quick question for Maoists

[l'Enfermé]

Comrade, can you show me the figures of private enterprise vs. state owned production? And while you are at it, can you break it down by industry. Is steel and energy production primarily private? How about transportation? It matters that key industries are nationalized. It doesn't mean that there is workers control or workers democracy. But it ain't capitalism -- or if it is it is a new type of capitalism

Private enterprise vs. state owner production doesn't matter at all. Most of these "nationalized" enterprise and industries and such are managed by party-affiliated capitalists, CEOS, millionaires, etc.

As for Preobrazhensky, I agree he was a great economist, and the ABCs of Communism is still a worthwhile read. There was a lot of confusion among the Bolsheviks as to what was going to happen after the revolution regarding organizing the economy. But I don't think anyone said that since we have wages, this is capitalism. In the transition to socialism after capitalism is defeated, there will probably be wage labor for a period of time.

I don't think so comrade. Wage labour means that workers are selling their labour-power as a commodity to capitalists. If workers conquer power, the first thing they would do is abolish wage-labour if they know what's good for them.

But to clarify, you never thought that China was anything but capitalist -- so all this stuff about millionaires must be beside the point, right?

I don't know what it was before the market reforms. Under Mao, the there was no capitalist class, let alone a capitalist class whose most influential members are high-ranking officials in the party! I don't think I'm sufficiently informed to say what the mode of production in China was before the "market reforms", but I think I'm sufficiently informed on modern China to caterogically state that it's definitely a capitalist country, with a very powerful capitalist class and a completely impotent proletariat completely at the mercy of the capitalists.

And I have no disagreement that the party is rife with bureaucratic leeches that are pro-capitalist. But a counterrevolution in China will be bloody and you will see the kind of falling off a cliff of the living standards of the population. You look at it and have a moralistic response. Hey Napoleon played a pretty negative role in the French Revolution. His armies were the aggressors against some of the old monarchies in Europe. Quick, which side represented progress?

The party is not rife with bureaucratic leeches that are pro-capitalist. It's rife with actual capitalists. Capitalists that employ workers and make money off of capital. Capitalists that own the means of production. And these capitalists are some of the highest-ranking members of the party. Around a third of China's numerous millionaires are party members; in August 2012, there were 1,020,000 millionaires(and what, over 100 billionaires?) in China, that would mean that there are over 300,000 millionaires in the Chinese "Communist" Party!

This is simply ridiculous.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I guess the facts that China is much more powerful than Russia in every way probably don't have much to do with Marxism. Facts are facts.

The USSR was undoubtedly the aggressor. Does anyone still question that?
And that aggression more than anything severely harmed the revolution in Finland. See: "Spirit of the Winter War"

Well, that is my point. Marxists don't give a shit who the aggressor is. That is moralism. We are concerned with the class nature of the states that are fighting. As for whether China would attack Russia or vice versa what is the difference? I would defend China against the Russians. Before counterrevolution restored capitalism in Russia, hostilities between the countries was a much more complex issue.

Comrade Enferme, I am as impressed as you are with the wealth accrued by some of the Chinese bureaucrats. That this somehow changes the class nature of the state is not true. I agree that it is a bad thing. When did the counterrevolution take place, then? At which point did China become capitalist do you think?

[l'Enfermé]

Comrade, the fact that the Chinese state is governed by Chinese capitalists that have hoarded tens of billions of dollars does greatly impact the class nature of the state. This is undeniable. The combined wealth of 70 of the National People's Congress(the Chinese parliament) richest members is 90 billion dollars. The combined wealth of the all 535 members of the US Congress is 2.04 billion dollars.

As for counterrevolution, what do you mean? There was never a socialist revolution in China to begin with. There was a Civil War, in which Mao's peasant and petty-bourgeoisie based army won. The proletariat had absolutely nothing to do with it. Then you had a dictatorship of these Chinese Stalinists, which makes bourgeoisie democracy look like a utopia. Then you had Dengist market reform.

What does the proletariat and the proletariat's world-historical mission, socialism, have to do with any of it? I'm confused.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

Comrade, the fact that the Chinese state is governed by Chinese capitalists that have hoarded tens of billions of dollars does greatly impact the class nature of the state. This is undeniable. The combined wealth of 70 of the National People's Congress(the Chinese parliament) richest members is 90 billion dollars. The combined wealth of the all 535 members of the US Congress is 2.04 billion dollars.

As for counterrevolution, what do you mean? There was never a socialist revolution in China to begin with. There was a Civil War, in which Mao's peasant and petty-bourgeoisie based army won. The proletariat had absolutely nothing to do with it. Then you had a dictatorship of these Chinese Stalinists, which makes bourgeoisie democracy look like a utopia. Then you had Dengist market reform.

What does the proletariat and the proletariat's world-historical mission, socialism, have to do with any of it? I'm confused.

The Chinese bourgeoisie were expropriated -- industry and finance were nationalized, a monopoly of foreign trade was established. That has a lot to do with it -- although, of course, it was never socialism or anything close. It was a huge victory for the Chinese peasants and workers. This was a peasant based Stalinist party that took power and instituted the dictatorship of the proletariat, while maintaining political power. Was Mao a capitalist? Was Deng? I don't think so. The bloated Stalinist slime that currently lead the CCP will ultimately be swept aside. By either political revolution, or counterrevolution that restores capitalism. BTW, it will look different than in the USSR because their actually is an extant Chinese bourgeoisie. The Russian bourgeoisie was dead by the time of the counterrevolution.

What was your view of the USSR?

[Grenzer]

The Chinese bourgeoisie were never expropriated fully as a class. Even during the peak of the Cultural Revolution, 20% of industry remained within privately owned hands with the surplus value of labor going to capitalist accumulation.

The class nature of the CCP ceased to be proletarian in 1927; it then became primarily based in the peasantry with a petit-bourgeois leadership. The proletariat simply had nothing to do with it. You cannot institute a proletarian dictatorship through a party that is not proletarian. This is simply common sense.

There can be no counter-revolution in China that restores capitalism, as what exists now is capitalism. What would take place in China would ultimately be a political revolution: one section of the bourgeoisie overthrowing another in order to have a state form that is less cumbersome to themselves.

The CCP today is a bourgeois party. It is headed by CEOs, factory owners, and the like. Private ownership exists in China. The bourgeois appropriate the surplus value of labor in capitalist accumulation, reinvest, and so on. It functions more or less identically to other bourgeois states. There is higher state involvement, but it remains a bourgeois state as the fundamental laws of capitalism remain in operation.

The Sparts and their hangers on have a terrible track record with this kind of thing. In 1993, they were still talking about "Defending the gains of the October Revolution" in Russia.

You yourself admit there is a Chinese bourgeoisie. It is a complete negation of all the features of the USSR that Trotsky argued made it worth defending.

Here are two illuminating Mao quotes:

Not only we do not hinder the private economic activity, but on the contrary we encourage and stimulate it, if the owners of private enterprises do not violate the laws promulgated by the government, because the development of the private economy now is necessary, it is in the interests of the state and the people

The labour legislation of the People’s Republic defends the interests of the workers, but it is not directed against the enrichment of the national bourgeoisie... for this development is not in the interest of imperialism, but in the interest of the Chinese people

Again, this quote clearly highlights the petit-bourgeois, populist nature of the Chinese ideology and state. There is absolutely nothing proletarian about the regime in China. The initial regime established by Mao was primarily Bonapartist in nature, trying to mediate the interests of the different classes which included the peasantry, proletariat, petit-bourgeoisie, and bourgeoisie. This is especially highlighted by the drivel about the "bloc of four classes". With Mao's death, the balance decisively shifted in favor of the bourgeoisie, which have remained in control of the state ever since.

As it stands, those who support China are supporting an actually existing imperialist power. They're spreading their tendrils across Africa now, much as the young imperialist United States did in Latin America a century ago. There is no practical difference between the ostensible Trotskyists who support China and the Brezhnevites of the CPUSA.

[Paul Cockshott]

What are the dates of those quotes?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

The Chinese bourgeoisie were never expropriated fully as a class. Even during the peak of the Cultural Revolution, 20% of industry remained within privately owned hands with the surplus value of labor going to capitalist accumulation.

The class nature of the CCP ceased to be proletarian in 1927; it then became primarily based in the peasantry with a petit-bourgeois leadership. The proletariat simply had nothing to do with it. You cannot institute a proletarian dictatorship through a party that is not proletarian. This is simply common sense.

There can be no counter-revolution in China that restores capitalism, as what exists now is capitalism. What would take place in China would ultimately be a political revolution: one section of the bourgeoisie overthrowing another in order to have a state form that is less cumbersome to themselves.

The CCP today is a bourgeois party. It is headed by CEOs, factory owners, and the like. Private ownership exists in China. The bourgeois appropriate the surplus value of labor in capitalist accumulation, reinvest, and so on. It functions more or less identically to other bourgeois states. There is higher state involvement, but it remains a bourgeois state as the fundamental laws of capitalism remain in operation.

The Sparts and their hangers on have a terrible track record with this kind of thing. In 1993, they were still talking about "Defending the gains of the October Revolution" in Russia.

You yourself admit there is a Chinese bourgeoisie. It is a complete negation of all the features of the USSR that Trotsky argued made it worth defending.

Here are two illuminating Mao quotes:





Again, this quote clearly highlights the petit-bourgeois, populist nature of the Chinese ideology and state. There is absolutely nothing proletarian about the regime in China. The initial regime established by Mao was primarily Bonapartist in nature, trying to mediate the interests of the different classes which included the peasantry, proletariat, petit-bourgeoisie, and bourgeoisie. This is especially highlighted by the drivel about the "bloc of four classes". With Mao's death, the balance decisively shifted in favor of the bourgeoisie, which have remained in control of the state ever since.

As it stands, those who support China are supporting an actually existing imperialist power. They're spreading their tendrils across Africa now, much as the young imperialist United States did in Latin America a century ago. There is no practical difference between the ostensible Trotskyists who support China and the Brezhnevites of the CPUSA.

Excuse me, comrade. Did Mao and his minions expropriate the bourgeoisie or not? Was the vast majority of capital in China in the hands of the state by the mid 50s? Of course it was/is a bonapartist regime -- absolutely. But you are buying what Mao was saying. The bloc of four classes is not only drivel, but it is impossible. It couldn't happen. Mao tried to form a coalition, but the bourgeoisie wouldn't play nicely. They fled and hoped to regain power with the help of the US. They still do.

The Sparts date the counterrevolution before 1993. In 1993 there was no USSR to defend. As for it being the same as Brezhnevites -- that is silly. The SL condemns the anti-Marxist Chinese leadership in no uncertain terms and has done so dating back to it's inception. I suspect you know that and are just engaging in hyperbole, as is your wont.

Your position is consistent. Since there wasn't really a Chinese Revolution that overthrew capitalism, there was never much to defend. It's consistent, and wrong.

[thälmann]

is it possible that what mao did in the first years of the prc concerning middle and small private capital is exactly the same as what lenin did in the 20s? the only differene is that china was much mor backward and oppressed by imperialism, which makes such policy much more necessary then in the SU.

by the way the last interest payment on private owners was stopped in 66 in china, this interest payment was the only form of capitalist ownership since the late 50s.

[hetz]

Well, that is my point. Marxists don't give a shit who the aggressor is. That is moralism.

No, moralism would be saying that the USSR shouldn't have intervened in Poland in 1939 and violate the borders of the poor Polish "Republic".
Saying that the USSR shouldn't have attacked Finland for some swamps, because that would destroy and discredit the revolutionary movement in Finland for decades to come is not moralism.
And yeah, Marxists usually oppose imperialist aggression.

As for whether China would attack Russia or vice versa what is the difference?

The difference is that Russia cannot possibly attack China.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

is it possible that what mao did in the first years of the prc concerning middle and small private capital is exactly the same as what lenin did in the 20s? the only differene is that china was much mor backward and oppressed by imperialism, which makes such policy much more necessary then in the SU.

This essentially.

How do you nationalize the means of production without any means of production to nationalize?

[hetz]

How do you nationalize the means of production without any means of production to nationalize?

I don't know, but Pol Pot managed to pull it off.

[jookyle]

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

Actually, it's not unfair to say that Lenin's definition of the lower phase of Communism, which he refers to as socialism, and Marx's placement of the DotP are more or less the same.

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.

Marx- Critique of the Gotha Program

This is not really so different from the circumstances in which Lenin says the lower phase of communism exists. I hate to post the entire section where this is quite clear in Lenin's writing but I think it's the only to do it justice and shows how Lenin himself made the connection.

In the Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx goes into detail to disprove Lassalle's idea that under socialism the worker will receive the “undiminished” or "full product of his labor". Marx shows that from the whole of the social labor of society there must be deducted a reserve fund, a fund for the expansion of production, a fund for the replacement of the "wear and tear" of machinery, and so on. Then, from the means of consumption must be deducted a fund for administrative expenses, for schools, hospitals, old people's homes, and so on.

Instead of Lassalle's hazy, obscure, general phrase ("the full product of his labor to the worker"), Marx makes a sober estimate of exactly how socialist society will have to manage its affairs. Marx proceeds to make a concrete analysis of the conditions of life of a society in which there will be no capitalism, and says:

"What we have to deal with here [in analyzing the programme of the workers' party] is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it comes."

It is this communist society, which has just emerged into the Light of Day out of the womb of capitalism and which is in every respect stamped with the birthmarks of the old society, that Marx terms the “first”, or lower, phase of communist society.

The means of production are no longer the private property of individuals. The means of production belong to the whole of society. Every member of society, performing a certain part of the socially-necessary work, receives a certificate from society to the effect that he has done a certain amount of work. And with this certificate he receives from the public store of consumer goods a corresponding quantity of products. After a deduction is made of the amount of labor which goes to the public fund, every worker, therefore, receives from society as much as he has given to it.

“Equality” apparently reigns supreme.

But when Lassalle, having in view such a social order (usually called socialism, but termed by Marx the first phase of communism), says that this is "equitable distribution", that this is "the equal right of all to an equal product of labor", Lassalle is mistaken and Marx exposes the mistake.

"Hence, the equal right," says Marx, in this case still certainly conforms to "bourgeois law", which,like all law, implies inequality. All law is an application of an equal measure to different people who in fact are not alike, are not equal to one another. That is why the "equal right" is violation of equality and an injustice. In fact, everyone, having performed as much social labor as another, receives an equal share of the social product (after the above-mentioned deductions).

But people are not alike: one is strong, another is weak; one is married, another is not; one has more children, another has less, and so on. And the conclusion Marx draws is:

"... With an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal share in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, the right instead of being equal would have to be unequal."

The first phase of communism, therefore, cannot yet provide justice and equality; differences, and unjust differences, in wealth will still persist, but the exploitation of man by man will have become impossible because it will be impossible to seize the means of production--the factories, machines, land, etc.--and make them private property. In smashing Lassalle's petty-bourgeois, vague phrases about “equality” and “justice” in general, Marx shows the course of development of communist society, which is compelled to abolish at first only the “injustice” of the means of production seized by individuals, and which is unable at once to eliminate the other injustice, which consists in the distribution of consumer goods "according to the amount of labor performed" (and not according to needs).

The vulgar economists, including the bourgeois professors and “our” Tugan, constantly reproach the socialists with forgetting the inequality of people and with “dreaming” of eliminating this inequality. Such a reproach, as we see, only proves the extreme ignorance of the bourgeois ideologists.

Marx not only most scrupulously takes account of the inevitable inequality of men, but he also takes into account the fact that the mere conversion of the means of production into the common property of the whole society (commonly called “socialism”) does not remove the defects of distribution and the inequality of "bourgeois laws" which continues to prevail so long as products are divided "according to the amount of labor performed". Continuing, Marx says:

"But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged, after prolonged birth pangs, from capitalist society. Law can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby."

And so, in the first phase of communist society (usually called socialism) "bourgeois law" is not abolished in its entirety, but only in part, only in proportion to the economic revolution so far attained, i.e., only in respect of the means of production. "Bourgeois law" recognizes them as the private property of individuals. Socialism converts them into common property. To that extent--and to that extent alone--"bourgeois law" disappears.

However, it persists as far as its other part is concerned; it persists in the capacity of regulator (determining factor) in the distribution of products and the allotment of labor among the members of society. The socialist principle, "He who does not work shall not eat", is already realized; the other socialist principle, "An equal amount of products for an equal amount of labor", is also already realized. But this is not yet communism, and it does not yet abolish "bourgeois law", which gives unequal individuals, in return for unequal (really unequal) amounts of labor, equal amounts of products.

This is a “defect”, says Marx, but it is unavoidable in the first phase of communism; for if we are not to indulge in utopianism, we must not think that having overthrown capitalism people will at once learn to work for society without any rules of law. Besides, the abolition of capitalism does not immediately create the economic prerequisites for such a change.

Now, there are no other rules than those of "bourgeois law". To this extent, therefore, there still remains the need for a state, which, while safeguarding the common ownership of the means of production, would safeguard equality in labor and in the distribution of products.

The state withers away insofar as there are no longer any capitalists, any classes, and, consequently, no class can be suppressed.

But the state has not yet completely withered away, since the still remains the safeguarding of "bourgeois law", which sanctifies actual inequality. For the state to wither away completely, complete communism is necessary.
Lenin-The State and Revolution

Both are the period between capitalism and communism. Lenin simply goes into the situation in a bit more detail than Marx did.

[Ostrinski]

What appeal are people in the west supposed to draw from Maoism?

[hetz]

[ind_com]

What appeal are people in the west supposed to draw from Maoism?

A clear military line for revolution, that does not project the revolution indefinitely into the future.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

No, moralism would be saying that the USSR shouldn't have intervened in Poland in 1939 and violate the borders of the poor Polish "Republic".
Saying that the USSR shouldn't have attacked Finland for some swamps, because that would destroy and discredit the revolutionary movement in Finland for decades to come is not moralism.
And yeah, Marxists usually oppose imperialist aggression.

The difference is that Russia cannot possibly attack China.

I'm glad your crystal ball is working so well regarding the relations of China and Russia. As for Finland vs. Poland, you are talking about outcome. In both cases you had hostile capitalist countries on the border of the USSR -- while it would not have been correct strategy to attack these countries, once the battle was joined the class nature of the state's was the essential factor, not whether it would alienate people. If the USSR had defeated Finland and subsequently overturned capitalism that would have been positive in the historical sense. That is what Trotsky defended. And that is what the petite bourgeois opposition ran away from.

[l'Enfermé]

^I hope Messieurs Maoists will forgive us Marxists for not confusing a military rebellion of peasants lead by petty-bourgeoisie pseudo-communists with Proletarian Revolution.

As Marx said, parties do not make revolutions, Nations do. We are horrified by the notion of peasant armies forcing the nation to "make" a revolution through military force. And rightly so.

[hetz]

I'm glad your crystal ball is working so well regarding the relations of China and Russia

If Russia cannot attack China now then it will be even less "competitive" in the future, because China is getting stronger every day and Russia isn't. All well known facts.

If the USSR had defeated Finland and subsequently overturned capitalism that would have been positive in the historical sense. That is what Trotsky defended

Trotsky defended "exporting revolution" by force, building socialism on tops of bayonettes?

[ind_com]

^I hope Messieurs Maoists will forgive us Marxists for not confusing a military rebellion of peasants lead by petty-bourgeoisie pseudo-communists with Proletarian Revolution.

As Marx said, parties do not make revolutions, Nations do. We are horrified by the notion of peasant armies forcing the nation to "make" a revolution through military force. And rightly so.

Of course you'll be horrified by any revolution! Because each military action in a revolution is a blow to the imperialist capital you support by disguising yourself as a Marxist and spewing reactionary bullshit.

[l'Enfermé]

Maoist logic: You're a fake Marxist if you adhere to Marx's ideas, but you're a Marxist if you discard the Marxist conception of what consitutes a class and the Marxist attitude towards the peasantry, if you equate proletarian revolution to peasant army rebellion and force the nation to revolution through military force.

Makes sense. By your definition of what a Marxist is and what a reactionary-liberal-fake-Marxist is, Marx, Engels, Wilhelm Liebknecht and August Bebel, Karl Kautsky and Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, Daniel De Leone, Georgi Plekhanov, Zetkin, Mehring, Lafargue, Connolly, Trotsky and even Stalin and so many others were reactionary-liberal-fake-Marxists. The only Marxists, then, are Maoists. The same Marxists that openly discard and revise most of Marxism and fail to comprehend even slightly the rest.

Hear ye! comrades, the only true Marxism is petty-bourgeois Maoist populist-Bonopartism. Hear and learn! Proletarians do not make proletarian revolutions, peasant guerrilla armies lead by petty-bourgeois intellectuals make proletarian revolutions!