Maoism.

[LOLseph Stalin]

This will not help our cause at all. Letting the capitalists experience socialism will make them socialist, torturing them will never. In fact, doing this will only cause hatred for socialism from the capitalists, their friends and families, its skeptical supporters, and unsure possible socialists.

Not true. There's people who hated socialism in the past socialist regimes. Then again, it's debatable among tendencies whether they were even socialist or not. However, my point still stands. Not everybody is going to magically turn socialist just like we won't magically turn capitalist.

[DDR]

This will not help our cause at all. Letting the capitalists experience socialism will make them socialist, torturing them will never. In fact, doing this will only cause hatred for socialism from the capitalists, their friends and families, its skeptical supporters, and unsure possible socialists.

I belive in shock therapy, let them experiment in their onw flesh why capitalism is inmoral, let them live as workers Ayn Rand's wettes dream if needed. They preach the theories of capitalism and wealth making, well, let them feel the results of it, make them live a real life in their dream world. Why we flourish in times of crisis? Because more people feel more deeply the exploitation, and so it's the only way they will learn to apreciate what socialist life has to offer, for it will be vastly different from what it used to be.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Not everybody is going to magically turn socialist just like we won't magically turn capitalist.

Gulags will only turn people away from your cause. They will think you people are disgusting and cruel, and that is how they will justify their attacks against you. I know if some guys sent many of my friends and family to gulags just because they are capitalists, I would want to fight against them, no matter how many red flags they wave.

let them feel the results of it, make them live a real life in their dream world.

That will only be counter-productive, and it will justify their hatred at you.

There's people who hated socialism in the past socialist regimes.

If what past "socialist" regimes had was socialism, then I am an anti-socialist and their hatred for "socialism" is justified.

[DDR]

You don't get it, this isn't a physical gulag, it's a practical one. They have only experienced capitalism in one side of the table, let the try the other side. Force Glen Beck, Ruper Murdoch or Alan Greenspan to live in what it's now minimum wage, 12 hours a day, same healthcare benefits and days off as a waitress or any other unskilled worker, and pay rent, alimentation, transportation, leisure, etc. at the same prices as the capitalist market dictates. It's more moral than forced labor (and more practical),absolutely more than firing squads, plus no capitalist nation could say a word against this practice.

[Blake's Baby]

What are some good beginner texts on Maoism? According to a member of the site I apparently uphold the Maoist stance on DotP without even realizing it so I figured I might as well learn more about Maoism.

Actually, I said that you uphold the Trotskyist stance on the DotP, but rather confusingly express it in Maoist language.

But don't let that stop you.

[Ismail]

In Russia, Albania, and in every People's Democracy (from Bulgaria to Poland, from the DPRK to Vietnam) there were many bourgeois intellectuals, petty merchants, etc. who threw their lot in with a victorious communist movement. Outright capitalists changing sides, though, was quite rare and they almost always fled if they could (e.g. from North Vietnam and Korea to the South, from Eastern Europe to Western Europe and the USA) which isn't too surprising, seeing as how their whole livelihood and psychology were vested in the exploitation (and justifying thereof) of labor.

Letting capitalists experience socialism will, on the whole, make them want capitalism back since they have both external support (from capitalist states) and remain accustomed to their old psychological views. If there are those who genuinely want to contribute to the new society, any abilities as organizers, administrators, etc. they possess will be used as was the case in every state I just mentioned.

In fact it was Trotsky and his followers in the 30's who were attacking the "Stalinist bureaucracy" for supposedly allowing too many ex-Mensheviks and former feudal and bourgeois figures in the cultural, economic, judicial, etc. realms.

[Hiero]

Lin Biao's MIA archive. Lin Bia was a major architect for the Cultural Revolution. He had a different line from the Gang of Four led by Jiang Qin.

I find his speaches very informative of the conflict that was occuring in China. However he mentions in the 1966 speach that thoose who are wishing to restory capitalism are limited in number. And he constantly promotes Mao as a cult figure, both I find wrong.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Force Glen Beck, Ruper Murdoch or Alan Greenspan to live in what it's now minimum wage, 12 hours a day, same healthcare benefits and days off as a waitress or any other unskilled worker, and pay rent, alimentation, transportation, leisure, etc. at the same prices as the capitalist market dictates.

This would be impossible to do within socialism.

[DDR]

This would be impossible to do within socialism.

It's a State, it could do almost as it pleases, through taxation, legislation, etc. It can be achieved in socialism, just at it is in capitalism, just have to legislate them with their own rules. You can condemn people to jail, or communitary services, why can you condemn anyone to a job with capitalist conditions, and especial taxation to achieve the desired prices for them? It can be done.

[Fourth Internationalist]

why can you condemn anyone to a job with capitalist conditions, and especial taxation to achieve the desired prices for them? It can be done.

Wouldn't forcing someone to live and buy things like a lower-class worker in capitalism require capitalism, not socialism? Unless the DotP is somehow capitalist, not socialist? (Wouldn't that be impossible?)

[DDR]

Wouldn't forcing someone to live and buy things like a lower-class worker in capitalism require capitalism, not socialism? Unless the DotP is somehow capitalist, not socialist? (Wouldn't that be impossible?)

They are serving a sentence, they are paying for a crime, I wouldn't expect thay they have any privileges in the socialist organization of the working place, no vote, no saying. The factory, shop, workshop, etc. can still be in workers control. What porcentage of population represents the big bugeoise? 1%? 2%? If such small percentage doesn't control the means of production one cannot say that socialism has been achieved?

[Fourth Internationalist]

They are serving a sentence, they are paying for a crime, I wouldn't expect thay they have any privileges in the socialist organization of the working place, no vote, no saying. The factory, shop, workshop, etc. can still be in workers control. What porcentage of population represents the big bugeoise? 1%? 2%? If such small percentage doesn't control the means of production one cannot say that socialism has been achieved?

and especial taxation to achieve the desired prices for them?

Force Glen Beck, Ruper Murdoch or Alan Greenspan to live in what it's now minimum wage

and pay rent, alimentation, transportation, leisure, etc. at the same prices as the capitalist market dictates.

As far as I know, those do not exist in a socialist economy?

[ind_com]

Is this a universal view to all Maoists? I pretty much don't really mind Maoism, Marxism-Leninism, or any other tendency's views, ideas, etc. at all except for their favorable views on what I would consider non-proletarian dictatorships.

I can't speak for all Maoists, but it has been the official view of every Maoist party that has waged armed struggle.

[DDR]

As far as I know, those do not exist in a socialist economy?

USSR, GDR, Cuba, etc. had those things, other thing is that you could argue that they are not socialist, but that's another debate that doesn't have to do with this one. Nor was the one about gulags and punishments, I know...

[Fourth Internationalist]

Nor was the one about gulags and punishments, I know...

I don't understand what you mean here.

[DDR]

I don't understand what you mean here.

That I derrailed enough this thread with the "gulags" and I don't want to derrail it further with the endless debate of what is a socialist state.

[Blake's Baby]

This would be impossible to do within socialism.

As far as I know, those do not exist in a socialist economy?

Wouldn't forcing someone to live and buy things like a lower-class worker in capitalism require capitalism, not socialism? Unless the DotP is somehow capitalist, not socialist? (Wouldn't that be impossible?)

As this thread was started by someone claiming to be a Trotskyist who thinks that 'socialism' existed in the Soviet Union (by which he means the DotP), having been asked for clarification of terms by someone for whom 'socialism' = 'communism', and is being conducted by Maoists (who seem to believe that socialism = the DotP) then if you use the word 'socialism' it's probably best if you explain what you mean by it. Do you mean a synonym for 'communism'? Do you mean 'the lower phase of communism'? Do you mean the DotP?

And yes, the DotP is capitalism, it isn't 'impossible', it's impossible for it to be anything else. Communism cannot be established in one country; and if there is a revolutionary transformation of capitalist society into communist society, while a political phase of the DotP that corresponds to the economic transformation, then that phase of the DotP must begin in capitalism; once the transformation is complete (finished), then communist society begins. So that transformative period must be capitalism - in the process of becomming something else.

[Fourth Internationalist]

As this thread was started by someone claiming to be a Trotskyist who thinks that 'socialism' existed in the Soviet Union (by which he means the DotP), having been asked for clarification of terms by someone for whom 'socialism' = 'communism', and is being conducted by Maoists (who seem to believe that socialism = the DotP) then if you use the word 'socialism' it's probably best if you explain what you mean by it. Do you mean a synonym for 'communism'? Do you mean 'the lower phase of communism'? Do you mean the DotP?

And yes, the DotP is capitalism, it isn't 'impossible', it's impossible for it to be anything else. Communism cannot be established in one country; and if there is a revolutionary transformation of capitalist society into communist society, while a political phase of the DotP that corresponds to the economic transformation, then that phase of the DotP must begin in capitalism; once the transformation is complete (finished), then communist society begins. So that transformative period must be capitalism - in the process of becomming something else.

I consider the DotP to be socialist, meaning wokers' ownership of production, but not communist, which is stateless. I do not believe there are prices, wages, etc. in socialism/DotP. So, that is why I think it is impossible to make former capitalists live with minumum wage, etc.

[Ismail]

The dictatorship of the proletariat refers to control over the state. It obviously doesn't equate with socialism otherwise Lenin and Stalin would have had no need to discuss the construction of socialism. I haven't seen Soviet materials (pre- or post-1956) claim this either, nor Chinese or Albanian materials. Its source seems to a lack of theoretical knowledge.

The socialist sector of the economy grows under the leadership of the dictatorship of the proletariat expressed through its vanguard, the trade unions, organs of state power, etc. It thus displaces other sectors in the economy such as petty trade, artisan production, and private property in general.

For instance, when Lenin spoke about the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, he noted that it was not literally "socialist," but was aspiring towards socialism. I can see some people getting confused about this, and that's probably why Lenin had to note that.

[Fourth Internationalist]

The dictatorship of the proletariat refers to control over the state. It obviously doesn't equate with socialism otherwise Lenin and Stalin would have had no need to discuss the construction of socialism. I haven't seen Soviet materials (pre- or post-1956) claim this either, nor Chinese or Albanian materials. Its source seems to a lack of theoretical knowledge.

The socialist sector of the economy grows under the leadership of the dictatorship of the proletariat expressed through its vanguard, the trade unions, organs of state power, etc. It thus displaces other sectors in the economy such as petty trade, artisan production, and private property in general.

For instance, when Lenin spoke about the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, he noted that it was not literally "socialist," but was aspiring towards socialism. I can see some people getting confused about this, and that's probably why Lenin had to note that.

If the working class doesn't have control of production aka socialism, how could they have their "dictatorship"?