Thread: Relevance of Mao texts for non Maoist

Results 1 to 13 of 13

  1. #1
    Join Date Oct 2006
    Posts 678
    Rep Power 12

    Default

    I was wondering what ya'll where thiking about the folowing statement :

    "Mao's writings are still valuable for people opposing Mao's actions".

    So even though you do not agree with what he did, could you still read (and get inspired ) from Mao's writing , even though, your like me , opposed to Mao's actions.
  2. #2
    Join Date Feb 2005
    Location Sweden
    Posts 206
    Rep Power 14

    Default

    In order to fully understand the doctorine of "Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong thought", you should read some texts written by Mao himself. If you want to fully understand Leninism, read the works of Lenin - and so forth and so on.

    Though Mao had his flaws as a politician, he was a brilliant theorist IMO.
    "Workers of the world, awaken! Break your chains, demand your rights! All the wealth you make is taken, by exploiting parasites. Shall you kneel in deep submission from your cradle to your grave? Is the height of your ambition to be a good and willing slave?"
    - Joe Hill
  3. #3
    Join Date Sep 2006
    Location Tha Netherland$
    Posts 2,902
    Organisation
    OFWGKTA
    Rep Power 34

    Default

    i think any person calling himself or called a marxist is intresting to read, hell i even read some essays by Kim Il Sung.
    the theory can always be intresting and have some good elements in it, if you agree with a specific thing from the story you shouldnt disagree with it because you dislike Mao, Stalin, Trotsky or whoever your reading.
    make your own mind.
  4. #4
    Join Date May 2005
    Location United States
    Posts 2,992
    Rep Power 18

    Default

    Maoism is an evolving ideology. It accpets criticism and is open to change.

    So even a person who is not necessarily a Maoist can still learn a lot from Mao's writings and contribute to "Maoism".

    I suggest you at least read Quotations.
  5. #5
    Committed Revolutionary Committed User
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location 127.0.0.1
    Posts 10,131
    Rep Power 23

    Default

    "Mao's writings are still valuable for people opposing Mao's actions".
    For counter-revolutionaries,yes. Counter-insurgency specialists still read his works in order to counter modern day guerrilla tactics.
  6. #6
    Join Date Oct 2005
    Location Australia
    Posts 34
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    I would think it is necessary to read past theory simply for the knowledge, and as said above, it is open to criticism and change, so it can be alterated to be benificial to even a non-maoist. The Quotations I think are a useful resource.
    <span style=\'colorurple\'>You think I am too small to be effective? Then you have never been in bed with mosquito. You think I am too small to have a big impact? Then you have never seen an oak tree grow from a couple of nuts that stood their ground.

    You can be a communist too.</span>
  7. #7
    Join Date Apr 2006
    Posts 2,472
    Rep Power 15

    Default

    Mao&#39;s writings will always be relevent
    "Love Other Human Beings like you would Yourself"

    -- Ho Chi Minh

    "We Don't Care who gets elected, because whoever it is will be Overthrown"

    -- Subcomandante Marcos
  8. #8
    Join Date Aug 2006
    Posts 344
    Rep Power 12

    Default

    Originally posted by LeftyHenry@February 18, 2007 05:33 am
    Mao&#39;s writings will always be relevent
    Only is you want to see the fullest folly that state socialism can become.
    It seems unbelievable that even today, after everything that has happened &amp; is happening in Russia, there are people who still imagine that the difference between socialists(ie Leninists.) &amp; anarchists is only that of wanting revolution gradually or quickly.

    ERRICO MALATESTA
  9. #9
    Join Date Jul 2006
    Location Britain
    Posts 789
    Organisation
    Communist Party of Britain
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Originally posted by Nusocialist+February 18, 2007 10:03 am--> (Nusocialist @ February 18, 2007 10:03 am)
    LeftyHenry
    @February 18, 2007 05:33 am
    Mao&#39;s writings will always be relevent
    Only is you want to see the fullest folly that state socialism can become. [/b]
    Hardly. Cambodia, North korea... Besides the point of this thread was to discuss the relevence of theory, not critise decisions made by Mao after the revolution.
  10. #10
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Lefty:

    Mao&#39;s writings will always be relevent
    You are right, I have found them very useful helping me refute a rather poor theory (which I cannot mention here (or I might be warned for derailing a thread)). His writings are perhaps among the weakest of the those inflicted on us by supporters of this un-named theory -- they certainly rival Stalin&#39;s, Engels&#39;s and Dietzgens&#39;s.

    So, yes I am really glad he inflicted this stuff on us.
  11. #11
    Join Date Jul 2006
    Location somewhere in the southern U.S.
    Posts 217
    Rep Power 12

    Default

    Mao understood that capitalism could be reborn even after the proletariat came to power and that it could return to dominance under the guise of the socialist state itself. Arguably, Mao even believed that capitalism could have a resurgence after the withering away of the state and the transition to a communist society. These concerns were one factor driving the constant political and social upheaval within the party (CPC), state apparatus, and China as a whole, particularly during the cultural revolution phase in the sixties and seventies. Socialism was not viewed as holistic, totalizing, and harmonious by virtue of simple party hegemony or the shift in the economic mode of production. The bourgeoisie, according to Maoist doctrine, was not finally defeated in the overthrow of capitalism, but would continue on as a potential threat in the CPC itself – as “capitalist roaders”. The fight against these elements would continue well into the building of communism and require constant mass mobilizations and ideological struggle among the people. It would require the revolution to be dynamic, in a state of flux, with leaps and ruptures over the long-term to suppress bourgeois tendencies.

    Given the apparent vigor of the “actually-existing” socialist states of his time, those insights perhaps seemed a bit more hypothetical, as compared to their reception today. In retrospect, he was quite prescient. Almost every single one of those states collapsed with barely a shot being fired: the USSR and Soviet-bloc countries from 1989-1991, China itself in 1976, and so on. Their transition to capitalism was effected in some cases by an almost complete disintegration of ideological legitimacy and authority among the people as a whole. But those transitions in all cases also revealed the conscious and calculated reconstruction of a new bourgeoisie from the remnants of the ruling communist parties and state apparatuses: the current oligarchs in Russia being one notable example. This fundamental change from the period when Mao was alive – what was initially only a potential or possibility has become an actuality, a material reality -- makes him very relevant today, in terms of assessing why the historical socialist bloc vanished into thin air and how to avoid that fate again in the future.

    But in reading Mao, one question persistently demands our attention. How is it that China, under Mao, managed to build the foundations for capitalist restoration, given the consciousness of that very real possibility and the attentiveness in formulating strategies for avoiding precisely that outcome? Socialism in China barely lasted a quarter-century – Mao’s body had hardly gone cold before Deng Xiaopeng and his compadres began plotting their coup to oust the Gang of Four. And we know what happened after that. All this, despite Mao’s rich theoretical contributions and internal political strategy, which were unique at the time within the communist movements.

    Compare those ideas and strategies to the dominant approach in the Soviet Union. The USSR certainly was not amenable any broad ideological mobilization of the masses analogous to what occurred in China. They were far more wedded to the use of overt force and violence and bureaucratic statist mechanisms to “mold” and “engineer” its peoples. They weren’t open to any similarly broad, open challenge to elements with the party and sure as hell didn’t take the position that the CPSU could become a Trojan horse for the reinstitution of capitalism. Yet, the grey, dour USSR – far less dynamic and in flux that China -- ultimately lasted much longer.

    So the question is: what explains the spectacular contradiction, the disconnect between Maoism and the reality of the almost immediate capitalist restoration following Mao’s death?
    the revolution is my boyfriend&#33;
  12. #12
    Join Date Mar 2005
    Posts 2,581
    Organisation
    United Students Against Sweatshops
    Rep Power 18

    Default

    I think Mao is important for non-Maoist for two reasons:
    (1) Mao took an autonomist turn within the confines of Leninism.
    (2) Mao opened the path for the development of a post-colonial Marxism.
    "We are now becoming a mass party all at once, changing abruptly to an open organisation, and it is inevitable that we shall be joined by many who are inconsistent (from the Marxist standpoint), perhaps we shall be joined even by some Christian elements, and even by some mystics. We have sound stomachs and we are rock-like Marxists. We shall digest those inconsistent elements. Freedom of thought and freedom of criticism within the Party will never make us forget about the freedom of organising people into those voluntary associations known as parties."
    --Lenin
    Socialist Party (Debs Tendency)
  13. #13
    Join Date Apr 2006
    Posts 2,472
    Rep Power 15

    Default

    Originally posted by Rosa Lichtenstein@February 18, 2007 03:07 pm
    Lefty:

    Mao&#39;s writings will always be relevent
    You are right, I have found them very useful helping me refute a rather poor theory (which I cannot mention here (or I might be warned for derailing a thread)). His writings are perhaps among the weakest of the those inflicted on us by supporters of this un-named theory -- they certainly rival Stalin&#39;s, Engels&#39;s and Dietzgens&#39;s.

    So, yes I am really glad he inflicted this stuff on us.
    Maoism is the farthest advance and most highly developed form of Leninism.
    "Love Other Human Beings like you would Yourself"

    -- Ho Chi Minh

    "We Don't Care who gets elected, because whoever it is will be Overthrown"

    -- Subcomandante Marcos

Similar Threads

  1. Say's Law: relevance to political issues?
    By Die Neue Zeit in forum Theory
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 27th July 2007, 01:31
  2. Relevance of Socialism today
    By Seven Stars in forum Learning
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 21st December 2006, 00:55
  3. Marxism Relevance Today - Debate
    By elijahcraig in forum News & Ongoing Struggles
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 14th July 2003, 21:47
  4. Marx's relevance in 2002
    By guerrillaradio in forum Theory
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 17th July 2002, 22:20
  5. Citing texts
    By Astrofro2001 in forum Opposing Ideologies
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2nd May 2002, 04:05

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Tags for this Thread